According to a Northland union representative, employees are going to work even though they’re sick because they can’t afford to stay at home. This comment was in response to a “Wellness in the Workplace” report released in 2013 which put the cost of employee absences at around $1.26 billion per annum.
Yet employers still bemoan the fact that many employees see sick leave as an extra five days’ paid leave entitlement and suspect that employees take “sickies” when not really sick. “Selfies” posted on Facebook would certainly bolster the employers’ scepticism when so-called “sick” employees are seen enjoying themselves at a mate’s party!
There is of course a real risk to both the sick employee and fellow workers if workers who are genuinely ill continue turning up at work. A fair and reasonable approach to this issue is crucial from both a business and a health and safety point of view and should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
The Medical Council of New Zealand released a Statement in October 2013 giving doctors strict guidelines around completion and issuing of medical certificates.
Inter alia the document states:
- Certificates must meet the standards outlined in relevant legislation and be written legibly, and is such a way that it is understandable to a lay person.
- The information disclosed should be accurate and based upon clinical observation, with patient comment clearly distinguished from clinical observation.
The latter is an important distinction because the doctor has to state whether the patient was actually seen and clinically observed or whether the employee was merely reporting to the doctor how they had felt several days prior.
Furthermore:
- Any comments on fitness for work should refer specifically to your clinical opinion, outlining those activities that are safe for the patient to undertake and appropriate restrictions, or unsafe activities that the patient should not undertake. If the patient is fit for some activities this should be recorded in the certificate.
Questions have been raised about breaching people’s privacy, but we don’t view this change as a breakdown of doctor/patient privilege. The employer, for both the business’s and the employee’s well-being, merely wants to establish how ill the employee is, how long they are likely to be away from work and what, if any, tasks they are capable of undertaking until fully fit.
As the Medical Council Statement explains (in reply to questions from employees):
“The statement tries to draw a distinction between information that is private (such as a diagnosis) and information that your employer or a government agency might need (for example, the timeframe for your recovery). Most of the time we suggest that doctors should seek your permission, and then include only information that the receiving agency needs in a certificate.”
Employers need to consider what information they require from the employee and/or from the doctor and if they feel the medical certificate supplied is not clear enough or does not meet the Medical Council guidelines, then they should contact the issuing doctor.
Remember that if they choose, employers are able to ask for “proof of illness or injury” (e.g. Medical Certificate) at any time once an employee takes sick leave. If the leave is three consecutive calendar days or longer, the cost of such proof should be borne by the employee. If the employer wants proof within the first three days, then they need to pay for it and if agreed to in the employment agreement, can dictate which doctor the employee should see. Otherwise, the employee has the right to choose their own doctor.
Misuse of sick leave can be dealt with through the normal disciplinary process but we advise caution. An employer must investigate thoroughly and must consider whether the employee was genuinely recuperating – see Taiapa v Te Runanga O Turanganui A Kiwa Trust t/a Turanga Araraua Private Training Establishment (18.03.13) – or was simply taking an extra day’s leave at the employer’s expense.
