A Dundee factory worker who was off ill for almost two years was unfairly dismissed because his employer did not obtain up-to-date information on his condition before terminating his employment.
An employment tribunal has ruled that Tokheim (UK) Ltd should not have written to William Low, 49, on November 4 2011 saying they were ending his contract on January 26 2012.
A reasonable employer would have waited for Mr Low to see his consultant surgeon on January 10 2012, the tribunal said in their judgment.
They could also have obtained advice from their own occupational health department about Mr Low’s prognosis and likelihood of returning to work.
Mr Low was an assembly operator at the fuel dispenser manufacturing plant in the West Pitkerro industrial estate.
He joined the company in June 1999 but in early 2010 he began to suffer from back pain diagnosed as sciatica, and he went off work on February 18.
He underwent orthopaedic surgery in July and again in September, and fully complied with Tokheim’s absence policy in terms of medical reports from his GP.
By March 2011 his condition had deteriorated and Tokheim was told a date for his return to work could not be provided at that stage.
Revisionary surgery was carried out in September 2011 but two months later the company wrote to him saying they were considering terminating his employment due to his medical condition.
He was called to a disciplinary hearing on November 4, at which Mr Low said that his surgeon was pleased and happy that he could be back at work after the latest surgery had healed although no date could be given.
Tokheim decided to terminate his employment because of his continuing incapacity, however.
The tribunal noted that the company’s dismissing officer had not waited for Mr Low to see his orthopaedic surgeon on January 10 2012 before deciding on dismissal.
Judge Chris Lucas ruled that by deciding on November 4 to dismiss him, Tokheim precluded any opportunity for obtaining up-to-date reports and taking them into account before reaching their decision.
Their decision to dismiss did not fall within the range of reasonable responses, and the decision to dismiss was therefore unfair.
The tribunal ordered Tokheim to pay compensation of £4,500 to Mr Low, who is still unfit for work.
His solicitor, Stephen Forsyth of Muir Myles Laverty, said: “No matter how long someone is off work, there are still rules and regulations that require to be followed before a decision is taken to dismiss an employee.”