Background
In this case, T, a train penalty fares inspector, had asked her manager for assistance to get home from the late shift. She was told that it was her responsibility to get herself to and from work although it was suggested that she could ask a colleague to accompany her or get a lift to the relevant station.
Following that conversation, T left work part-way through her shift and remained on sick leave for seven weeks. Her subsequent sick notes said that she was suffering from acute stress reaction and work-related stress. A dispute then arose about T’s entitlement to sick pay.
The company argued that the relevant sick pay clause was subject only to an obligation on them not to act in bad faith, capriciously or perversely. The EAT rejected that argument and said that the real issue is what effect the words, “if there is any doubt” have on the undoubted discretion to pay sick pay.
EAT ruling
Was the company in doubt as to whether T’s absence was due to reasons other than health? The EAT found that, initially, doubt did exist about the reason for T’s absence. But even if T was upset at the response to her original query, if it led to stress which in turn caused her absence, then she was entitled to sick pay, provided there was no doubt about the causative link.
Once the GP had certified that T was suffering from acute stress reaction, the company’s initial doubt, on a proper construction of the sick pay provision, was removed. The EAT went on to say that unless there was contrary medical evidence which put in doubt the GP’s opinion, T was entitled to sick pay on the basis of her GP's assessment.
Implications
If a similar case arises in your company and you are in doubt about the reason for an employee’s absence despite the employee’s medical certificate, you should arrange for your own medical investigation to be carried out.