Employers in South Africa have long faced challenges related to the misuse of sick leave and fraudulent activities related to the acquisition of sick leave certificates. A recent case, Woolworths (Pty) Ltd vs Commission for Conciliation, Mediation, and Arbitration (CCMA) and Others (JA90/22) [2024] ZALAC 29, sheds light on how such issues should be approached.

In this case, Woolworths contested a ruling by the CCMA. The dispute involved an employee who submitted sick notes from a medical practice in March 2016 and June 2018, allegedly issued by two doctors, Dr. Frempong and Dr. Zanele. Woolworths suspected fraud due to inconsistencies between the doctors' identities. They discovered that one doctor was a nursing assistant, though still registered with the HPCSA and other relevant bodies.

The company's concerns were based on:

    The crowded and untidy conditions of the medical practice.
  • The length of the doctor's nails.
  • Unsubstantiated rumours about sick note sales at the practice.

    • Relying on private investigators' findings, Woolworths dismissed the employee, alleging that the sick certificates were irregular. However, the CCMA ruled for the employee's reinstatement, citing no evidence to prove the employee's sickness claims were false or the medical certificates invalid.

    The Labour Appeal Court upheld the CCMA's decision, stating that the evidence provided by Woolworths was largely hearsay and insufficient to prove the employee's knowledge of or involvement in fraudulent activities. Key points from the Court included:

      The company failed to show that the employee knowingly consulted a fraudulent practitioner.
    • Evidence of malpractice at the medical practice did not prove the employee's certificates were tampered with or irregular.
    • The Court criticised the expectation that employees must verify the credibility of their healthcare providers. It emphasised that workers should not be penalised for using a doctor who is later found to be under scrutiny.

      • The Court's findings highlight several practical guidelines for employers dealing with suspected fraudulent sick leave certificates:

        Evidence Collection: Employers must ensure that evidence of fraud is concrete and directly relevant to the employee's case. Hearsay or general conditions at a medical practice are insufficient.
      • Due Process: Any action taken against an employee should be based on verified evidence that the employee was involved in or knowingly benefited from fraudulent practices.
      • Regulatory Reporting: If fraudulent activity is suspected at a medical practice, employers should report concerns to the HPCSA and other relevant regulatory bodies rather than making assumptions about individual employees' involvement.
      • Employee Rights: Workers are not expected to conduct background checks on their healthcare providers' qualifications beyond standard patient expectations.

        • This case underscores the importance of upholding fair processes and relying on substantiated evidence when addressing potential misuse of sick leave and fraud. Employers should act within the bounds of legal requirements, respect employees' rights, and address genuine concerns about medical certificate validity.

        The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mr Joanie Prinsloo
Consolidated Employers Organisation
Unit 18, Cambridge Office Park
Bauhinia Street
Highveld Technopark
Centurion
SOUTH AFRICA
Tel: 012880 0294
Fax: 086697 0584
URL: www.ceosa.org.za

© Mondaq Ltd, 2024 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source Business Briefing