Employment
Sections
Highlight
Sections
Highlight
A sports equipment salesman has been fired by his company, after a private detective notified his employer that he was enjoying long bike rides while on sick leave from work. The High Court of Justice in Madrid has upheld the dismissal of the worker, who took medical leave due to "fever, general malaise and haemorrhaging in the respiratory tract which made him unfit for his usual work", citing that the had breached the "good faith of his contract".
According to the clinical report, the employee had "epistaxis and anxiety, with a rise in blood pressure apparently caused by work-related stress, for which reason he was advised to take sick leave, check his blood pressure at home and take light daily exercise."
However, according to the judge's ruling, SUR has learned, the activity that the employee had been dismissed for was a "fraud against the employer, his colleagues and the Social Security system", as it demonstrated his ability to work or impeded with his recovery. The court stated that, in order to reach a fair and proportionate conclusion, it was important to examine both the reason for the sick leave and the recovery treatment.
According to case law, there are two distinct categories regarding the activities a worker cannot carry out during temporary incapacity: "on the one hand, those that, being incompatible with the pathological process on which the sick leave was based, reveal a simulation of the condition and a fraudulent intent in obtaining its recognition and subsequent benefits; and, on the other hand, those that are incompatible not with the functional impairments caused by the illness, but with the effectiveness of the prescribed treatments, as they delay or prevent recovery, thereby harming both the public interests of the healthcare system and the private interests of the employer."
The ruling stated that, in the case in question, the activities carried out by the worker during his sick leave "show that he is fit for work, on the grounds that it is not a question of gentle exercise, as recommended by the primary care doctor, but rather that they involve a significant physical effort, carried out only two days after the sick leave report was issued". "Specifically, on 17 March, the worker cycled a distance of around 10km. On 18 March, a distance of around 70 km, and on 19 March - about 90 kilometres. Two days later, the worker went to see his doctor, "where the sick leave report was confirmed, because the same functional limitation that had caused the sick leave persisted, namely: fever, general malaise that made him unable to carry out his usual work".
Finally, the court concluded that the worker, by carrying out these activities, "either shows the simulation of his condition or the exaggeration of it, or prevents or delays his recovery". Instead of following the doctor's recommendation to do a "gentle daily exercise", he carried out an "exercise at a semi-professional level, which cycling 70 or 90 km is". "The activities described above, apart from not being necessary in the normal course of daily life, are clearly and manifestly detrimental to his recovery, which, moreover, the worker was well aware of," the court stated.
Publicidad
Publicidad
Publicidad
Publicidad
Esta funcionalidad es exclusiva para registrados.
Reporta un error en esta noticia
Comentar es una ventaja exclusiva para registrados
¿Ya eres registrado?
Inicia sesiónNecesitas ser suscriptor para poder votar.