By Kaylen Moodley / Candidate Attorney / Mooney Ford Attorneys
In a recent case, Woolworths took on a sick note battle after dismissing an employee on suspicion of submitting a fraudulent sick note.
After receiving a warning about the doctor’s potential involvement in illicit activities, Woolworths initiated a thorough investigation. This probe revealed a shocking truth: the doctor was indeed engaged in the illegal distribution of sick notes. Armed with this information, Woolworths dismissed an employee for submitting a fraudulent certificate issued by the same doctor under investigation.
The employee contested the fairness of the dismissal before the CCMA. The CCMA found in favour of the employee. The Commissioner found that the investigation revealed no concrete evidence to suggest that she had not been genuinely ill during the periods in question.
Moreover, the Commissioner noted the employee’s transparency and honesty throughout the entire process. She had consistently informed her employer about her visits to the doctor and had dutifully submitted the sick notes. Her candidness played a crucial role in the Commissioner’s decision, underscoring the importance of integrity and communication in the workplace.
Woolworths challenged the outcome before the Labour Court.
The Labour Court emphasized that the employee had not been dishonest and that her account was corroborated by her doctor. The court further noted that the evidence presented by the company’s investigators was hearsay and lacked substantial credibility.
On appeal, the Labour Appeal Court reaffirmed the Labour Court’s decision. The Labour Appeal Court articulated that there was nothing suspicious about the sick note—it was neither altered nor falsified.
Moreover, the Court highlighted that the employee’s illness had not been legitimately challenged. The doctor had testified in support of the employee, and the investigators’ evidence remained categorized as hearsay.
Notable Points:
- Employee Integrity is a factor that can weigh in favour of an employee’s version.
- Doctor’s Testimony: A doctor’s evidence when sick notes are disputed is key.
- Importance of Credible Evidence: Direct evidence outweighs hearsay evidence.
- Importance of thorough Prosecution of Evidence: Even though it was found that the Doctor engaged in the distribution of illegal sicknotes, this was insufficient to prove that the sick note issued to the employee concerned was issued under fraudulent circumstances or that the employee was not genuinely ill. The employer was duty bound to adduce evidence proving that the employee did not in fact have an illness, or have the illness complained of during that time in which the sicknote was obtained.
Implications for Employers and Employees:
This case serves as an important reminder of the need for credible evidence and the role of integrity in legal matters. Employers must ensure their claims are supported by substantial proof, while employees can be reassured that honesty and transparency can be vital in securing justice.
Photo by Alexandr Podvalny on Unsplash
