”No, thanks” to sickness absence interview
The Supreme Court recently upheld a high court judgment, establishing that it was okay to summarily dismiss an employee who refused to participate in a sickness absence interview.
When an employee is absent due to illness, the employer is entitled to require a sickness absence interview and completion of a fit for work statement. According to the Sickness Benefits Act, the employee is obligated to attend such an interview, and non-attendance may lead to the employee losing their entitlement to sickness benefits. But the Act does not regulate the employment-related consequences of the employee’s non-attendance. That was the issue to be decided by the Supreme Court in this case.
The case concerned a technical manager who was on sick leave. On several occasions, he had refused to attend a sickness absence interview with the employer. The technical manager e.g. stated that such an interview would be a ”waste of his time” but did not otherwise refer to being unable to attend. The employer – who had previously informed the technical manager about the consequences of non-attendance – withheld the technical manager’s salary when he failed to attend the sickness absence interview. The employer summoned the technical manager for another interview after a while, which he also failed to attend, and then the technical manager was dismissed summarily.
According to the technical manager, the withholding of salary and the subsequent summary dismissal were unjustified, so he brought an action against the employer – first in the district court, then in the high court and, finally, in the Supreme Court.
Justification and proportionality
The Supreme Court established that it is for the employer to decide whether or not a sickness absence interview must be held. The normal principles of justification and proportionality in relation to managerial authority must, of course, be respected which, for example, means that an employee should not be summoned for an interview if the employer knows that the employee is unable to perform any work tasks. The Supreme Court noted that employers have wide discretion in this regard. In the specific case, the Supreme Court found that the employer had been justified in summoning the technical manager for a sickness absence interview.
Withholding of salary and summary dismissal were justified
With regard to the possible employment-related consequences of the technical manager’s failure to attend the sickness absence interview, the Supreme Court noted that this issue had to be decided in accordance with the general rules of employment law.
Based on the fact that the technical manager was obligated to attend the sickness absence interview and that he had refused to do so several times, as well as the fact that he had previously been informed of the consequences of non-attendance, the Supreme Court found that the technical manager’s actions amounted to gross misconduct. Accordingly, the employer was justified in withholding salary and summarily dismissing the technical manager when he (again) failed to attend a sickness absence interview.
Both the district court and the high court came to the same result.
Norrbom Vinding notes
- that the judgment of the Supreme Court establishes that failure to attend a sickness absence interview without reasonable cause may have employment-related consequences such as withholding of salary and, in certain circumstances, summary dismissal.
The content of the above is not, and should not be a substitute for legal advice.
Ius Laboris recently received the prestigious Global Network of the Year award at The Lawyer European Awards 2023.
The long-awaited bill, which introduces a requirement for registration of working time for each individual employee and provides the opportunity to derogate from the 48-hour rule for certain employee groups, has been submitted to the Parliament. The effective date has been postponed to 1 July 2024.
In a new article, Ius Laboris takes a closer look at the issue of whether employers can monitor employees’ social media posts.
On the first Tuesday of October, the parliamentary year kicked off and, as usual, the Government announced its legislative programme for the parliamentary year 2023/2024.
The opportunities associated with AI are immense, but right now it is necessary to address a number of concerns about the use and potential of AI in the workplace.
In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court held that a retention bonus was not remuneration within the meaning of the Insolvency Act. The judgment is likely to have an impact on the question of whether retention bonuses are covered by section 17a of the Salaried Employees Act.