Posted By jacq We have an employee who has been on sick leave with depression after being harassed by a supervisor.The company Occupational Medical Officer said he would be fit to return to work if he was re-deployed. Company has nowhere to re-deploy employee and told him yesterday that he must return to his old post under the same supervisor. They are claiming that the OMA advice supercedes the fact that he has a sick line and have told him to return to work on the 22nd. I feel that the company are wrong on this issue but they disagree, saying they have taken the highest advice possible!HELP

Posted By Karen Todd If you bring this person back to work, under the same supervisor, then it is reasonable to forsee that they would suffer stress, anxiety, depression and probably go off sick again therefore you would have failed in your duty of care towards this person. Regards, Karen

Posted By Bernie Woods Jacq, The company can't have it both ways, either they accept the OMA's advice or they don't. The OMA is stating that the person is fit to return to work in a different capacity. Therefore, if the company cannot offer a different role, the person is not fit to return to work. I would suggest that your organisation is storing up a rather large claim for itself if they continue along this road.

Posted By Mike Miller It would seem that not only the supervisor might be harrasing him but the company is also by attempting to force him back to work. One cannot argue with a doctors cerificate unless they are prepared to have the individual examined by an independant medical consultant. And this can only happen with the consent of the individual by the authorised release of medical history from GP. I feel another E.T. coming on !! MIke

Posted By Shane Johnston Having been harassed, and having seen people use the same system to "explain" poor attendance, one must remember that there are two sides to a coin. Each party has to abide by their side of the contract. Employers and employees have a duty to act reasonably. You're all assuming that the employer is acting unreasonably, and that the employee was harassed by the Supervisor !! Has he actualy made a formal complaint to his employer, was this prior to his absence or after his employer has asked him to come back to work ? If a claim has been made has the employer investigated it, and if so was it proven ? Is this the only period of absence in the past few years, or is this the final straw? I was bullied/harassed for several years at work, I had on average 30+ days sick per year, and was asked on several occasions by HR, Occ Health etc if there was an underlying cause ..... but failed to report the harassment. My employer acted reasonably to try and improve my attendance, I didn't. If they had decided to "let me go" due to my poor sickness record, and as they had acted reasonably, I doubt I would have a leg to stand on. I only made a formal complaint after I was approached by HR "off the record". I was told that they "could not act until someone made a complaint". I made the formal complaint and the issue was resolved, sickness returned to zero etc etc. I have also know an individual who has had a very poor attendance record, pull the harassment card after their employer has decided to take action over their attendance. One must remember that the employee has a duty to turn up to work. If he fails to do this, and the employer acts reasonably and makes every effort to encourage him back, but attendance does not improve .... then they can wave him goodbye. Shane.

Posted By John Murgatroyd There you go then. Employee 1 - Employer 0 So, what's the book on the likely payout... Looking back through tribunal decisions, and bearing in mind that the amount they can award has dramatically increased. I should say about 30K (ish). And he could probably also apply to retain/go back to, his job. Hmm. No proper investigation of a legitimate complaint. Prejudiced managers. Driven to illness. Possibly also grounds for a criminal complaint...as in assault (no, you don't have to be hit to claim assault) LOADS of fun for a zealous lawyer.

Posted By Stuart Nagle Jacq. If there is case for harassment here, and the company have admonished the supervisor, and then insist that the employee return to work under the same supervisor and conditions, without some form of management intervention with both parties to agree how to move forward to everyones benefit, even on best advice (medically), I see the employee having have good grounds for the following: 1) claim for stress - employee put back into position where he is likely to be further harassed and possibly exposed to discrimination etc by the supervisor... 2) the employee going sick again due to 'stress' (have you done an assessment of the outcomes of the employee returning to work under the same conditions ect?) and making a claim 3) a case in the industrial tribunal for stress, constructive dismisal etc...ect... I think, unless the situation for the employee retruning to work is considerably better than it was before he went sick, and there is considerable evidence that the company have gone so far as is reasonably practicable to improve the working conditions for the employee, and tackled the supervisor and made efforts to sort this problem out, then the company are batting on a very sticky wicket!! - regardless of the medical advice that he is fit to return to work. Stuart