Difficult and wilfully obstructive employees can cause real headaches for employers, as the recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) case of Chaplin v Howard Kennedy Solicitors has shown.

Miss Chaplin had had lengthy absences from work, including incidences of stress and anxiety. Her employer approached her to obtain consent for its Occupational Health advisers to approach her GP and receive a medical report. This consent was refused.

A meeting was arranged between Miss Chaplin and the employer’s Occupational Health advisers, but during this meeting Miss Chaplin was uncooperative, refused to talk about her alleged illness and again refused to give consent for her employers to contact her GP.

A final approach was made by the employer to Miss Chaplin in order to gain access to her medical records so that they could ascertain what they could do to help her return to work. During this approach, the employer warned Miss Chaplin that another refusal of consent could result in termination of her employment. She initially gave her consent, but subsequently retracted it.

The employer then sent her a Step 1 letter detailing her misconduct - refusing to obey a reasonable management request and failing to cooperate with her employer - and later dismissed her after a Step 2 meeting.

Miss Chaplin claimed unfair dismissal, and, when her claim was rejected, appealed the decision to the EAT.

The EAT upheld the original tribunal’s decision, finding that the employer had acted fairly and reasonably throughout the proceedings. Not only had they warned the employee of the potential consequences of her continued uncooperative behaviour, but there was also a specific passage in the company’s contract of employment which addressed this situation, which stated:

“The firm reserves the right to call for a medical examination through its occupational health advisers [...] to determine your fitness to work on general or specified duties” and, “The firm reserves the right to require employees to undergo medical examinations either for health and safety reasons, including the obtaining of third party approval to carry out assignments, or to establish the viability of ongoing employment.”

In the light of these actions on behalf of the employer, the EAT could find no fault in the dismissal procedure, and so the appeal was unsuccessful.

Technorati Tags: Sick Leave, Unfair Dismissal