ERA Confirms Dismissal Was Justified

The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) recently ruled on a case involving an employee's dismissal on medical grounds.

A long-serving employee challenged his termination, arguing that his role had been unfairly altered and that he was discriminated against due to his disability.

In 2017, the employer underwent a restructure, introducing changes to job descriptions and work expectations. As part of this process, the employee accepted a new role as a customer service officer. This position required handling inbound calls. However, the employee, who has tinnitus, found that taking calls worsened his condition. Following a workplace assessment, the employer acknowledged that call handling aggravated his symptoms and accommodated him by removing this requirement.

By 2022, the employer formalized job expectations, making inbound call-handling a key duty for customer service officers. The employee refused to participate and declined discussions about possible accommodations.

In 2023, the employer offered to pay for a medical assessment and treatment to help the employee manage his condition. A specialist report did not conclude that he was unfit for his role. The employer then proposed a six-month exemption from call-handling while the employee underwent treatment, but he declined the offer.

In November 2023, the employer sent a letter stating that, since the employee had not engaged with the proposed accommodations and could not perform a key function of his role, it was considering ending his employment on medical grounds.

During a meeting on 21 November 2023, the employer reiterated:
"You have told [us] that your tinnitus prevents you from being able to perform inbound voice work (which is a requirement of your role), and you have declined to attend treatment and training which may assist you to perform that work."

The employer further clarified that termination on medical grounds did not require the employee’s consent under the terms of his employment agreement.

The ERA determined that the employer acted as a fair and reasonable employer and that the dismissal was justified.

The ruling stated:
"His medical condition meant that he could not perform all the requirements of his role. For about 28% of the working year, [workers] are required to be available for voice work up to full-time. Over the remainder of the year, they are required to be available for voice work 20% of their time. His incapacity was significant, and [the employer] was justified in deciding that there were grounds to terminate his employment."

The ERA found that the employer had sufficiently investigated the matter, engaged with the worker regarding his concerns, and provided a reasonable opportunity to respond before making the decision to dismiss him. The employer’s efforts to support the worker and offer adjustments to his role were in line with good faith obligations under employment law.

Regarding the worker’s claim of discrimination, the ERA stated:
"The reason that [the worker] was not able to do that work (his disability) was not a material cause of [the employer’s] decision."

It was determined that any employee unable to perform a significant part of their role would have been subject to the same decision.

If you have any questions or require support in any of the areas outlined above contact us.