Shields v Dundalk Simon Community Ltd
EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CASE NO. UD1357/2013
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:
The claimant gave evidence. He was employed as a Night Shift Worker for the respondent since the 8th June 2004 working a 12-hour shift three times a week. The respondent provides a shelter facility for the public.
In February 2008 the claimant was involved in a car accident which caused him back, neck and a head injury. As a result of this accident he also suffered anxiety and depression. He informed his Line Manager (PMB) of this incident and submitted certified medical certificates for his absence. In July 2008 his doctor deemed him fit to resume work but strictly on a phased basis due to the nature of his duties. He informed PMB of his doctor's recommendation. However on his return to work he was allocated a full time shift pattern. He told the Tribunal that he felt overwhelmed by it and had to take a day sick and a days annual leave during this roster. He informed PMB of his concerns regarding the work roster and the fact he had to take time off. PMB told him it was fine and to take off as much time as he needed.
He attended his doctor and requested to see a psychiatrist. He attended the psychiatrist regularly and kept PMB informed of his medical progress.
On the 5th December 2008 the Chief Executive Officer (NM) of the respondent company contacted him by letter to clarify his fitness to return to work and was informed that he would remain of the respondent's payroll but on a "no pay" basis. He contacted PMB and informed him he would return to work in three months time. PMB told him his position would be covered over this period.
On the 3rd June 2009 NM again wrote to the claimant to request him to attend the respondent's company doctor to ascertain a second opinion regarding his fitness to return to work. He was still to remain on the payroll but on a "no pay" basis.
On the 4th August 2009 he attended the company doctor (Dr C) who assessed him fit to return to work. The doctors report was submitted to the respondent who deemed it to be "too vague". The claimant was invited to a meeting on the 21st September 2009 were he was informed the respondent required a medical report from his doctor and his psychiatrist before he could return to work. He contacted both his doctor and his psychiatrist who agreed to submit a report. Both reports were submitted to the respondent.
Some weeks later the claimant contacted PMB who informed him that he had not received the psychiatrist's report. He contacted the psychiatrist's office and was assured the report had been sent to his employer. He contacted PMB...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL