Dismissal due to excessive ill health absenteeism

Abstract

In a globally competitive market place companies strive to become as efficient as possible. Absenteeism is a worldwide problem as it impacts on company efficiency and cost effectiveness. A large portion of absenteeism can be attributed to ill health absences. Companies have prioritized the need to find ways of managing and reducing absenteeism. In South Africa such processes have to occur within the confines of a constitutional right to fair labour practices and other prescriptive labour legislation. The issue is somewhat complicated by the fact that employees have a right to paid time off due to illness. It is thus clear that not all ill health absenteeism can be deemed problematic. A balancing act needs to occur between the operational needs of the employer and the rights of employees. Ill health absenteeism becomes problematic once a threshold is reached at which point it becomes intolerable for the employer, thus deemed excessive. Excessive ill health absenteeism is not a difficult concept to understand, however it is not specifically defined. A universal concept of when absence is deemed to have reached the threshold of excessiveness does not exist and varies from one employer to the next. Excessive ill health absence is a multi-facetted concept (as a result of the various types of ill health absence) and thus a universal process cannot be adopted to deal with all types of excessive ill health absenteeism. In an attempt to deal with the different types of ill health absenteeism it is pertinent to categorize the issues. The author suggests various ways of dealing with ill health absenteeism, depending on the facts of each case. A misconduct process should only be applicable in instances where it can be proved that sick leave is used inappropriately or the reason for absence is unknown. Although case law suggests the prevalence of dealing with ill health absence as misconduct, especially in the case of persistent short term absence, these cases rarely prove that abuse is taking place. Suspicions regarding abuse without proper evidence to support such claims will not satisfy the substantive fairness requirements. In the event that illness is of a medium to long term nature, an ill health incapacity process may be the most appropriate process to apply, as in such instances a clearly distinguishable illness exists, which makes accommodation less problematic. Such a process is less suited to persistent short term absence as this can be the result of many illnesses or injuries. In the case of persistent short term absence, the individual may be fully capable of performing their duties upon returning to work, however their frequent absence causes unreliability and inefficiency. It is clear in this instance that accommodation cannot take place due to the unpredictable nature of the absences. The concern with persistent short term absence is less with the illness or illnesses displayed and more with the absences itself. The author suggests that it may be appropriate to deal with such absences on the basis of incapacity due to poor work performance. This assertion is based on the fact that the concern is with frequent short term absence that causes the employee to be unreliable; however the illnesses are not of such a nature that it can warrant accommodation. If it is accepted that the employee is not malingering or if the malingering cannot be proved the employee has failed to meet a performance standard (attendance standard). It is suggested that as part of any incapacity investigation consideration should be given to whether the illness or injury can be deemed a disability. This is necessary as disabled individuals are afforded special protection and treatment. A dismissal of an incapacitated individual that is actually deemed “disabled” could be held to be automatically unfair and therefore it is pertinent that this is established at the outset