The grievor was teminated when the company found his doctor's notes to be inadequate. He claimed they had been filled out by his homeopathic practitioner, but he had no recollection of signing them. In any event, they would have been inadequate.
A worker was fired for submitting false medical notes. The union grieved.
R.K. was a flight attendant employed by a national air carrier. He was credited with being a long-service worker. There was no discipline on his record when he was fired on March 9, 2012.
R.K. booked off sick for three days beginning on Oct. 1, 2011. The employer asked R.K. to supply a medical certificate. R.K. delayed. R.K. finally submitted a note. However, the note contained no clinic information. The doctor’s name was not spelled out and the signature was illegible. The note appeared to be photocopied.
The employer told R.K. that the note was not acceptable. R.K. agreed to get another one.
In the meantime, the employer reviewed R.K.’s file and found two similar notes that he had used to book sick time earlier in the year. A fourth note, similar in format, dating from May 2011 surfaced after R.K. was terminated.
When the employer confronted R.K. about the notes, he admitted that they were not from the clinic he usually attended. R.K. said the notes were from a homeopathic clinic.
Not a regulated medical professional
R.K. explained that the administrative staff at the homeopathic clinic used a note that he had from his regular clinic as a template because they were not accustomed to issuing medical notes. Homeopaths are not regulated medical professionals.
The homeopath testified that he did see R.K. on three occasions in 2011 and was able to produce invoices and clinical notes. However, he did not acknowledge signing the notes nor did he have any explanation as to who in his office would have provided a physician’s endorsement on the notes. The homeopath had no recollection of R.K. asking for sick notes.
The employer said that R.K. was aware that notes from a homeopath would not be acceptable. R.K. knew what medical documentation was required and he produced fraudulent notes to obtain sick pay. R.K. had not owned up to what he had done. Termination was warranted, the employer said.
The union said that the notes were a mix-up caused by difficult personal circumstances that R.K. was experiencing at the time. In fact, he was receiving care from licensed physicians for two of the occasions in question, the union said. The fact that the homeopath was unable to recall who signed R.K.’s notes was not sufficient to uphold the termination of a long-service employee. The union said that R.K. should be reinstated.
The Arbitrator disagreed.
R.K.’s explanation about the creation of the notes was not credible. The evidence showed that R.K. produced fraudulent medical notes to obtain sick leave, the Arbitrator said.
The Arbitrator acknowledged that the fourth note did not form part of the employer’s original pleadings. It did not matter. The outcome of the case would have been the same.
No privacy breach
The Arbitrator rejected the union’s assertion that the employer’s investigation into the notes breached R.K.’s privacy interests.
“The evidence in this proceeding is to the exact opposite effect demonstrating that all the employer did is what it was entitled to do: confirm the legitimacy, in this case, of highly suspicious notes. Accordingly, there is no basis for general, aggravated or punitive damages as sought by the union. It is odd that the grievor, who was actually receiving medical attention from licensed physicians during two of the three contested book-offs, would provide these fraudulent notes. But he did. The fact that he subsequently provided legitimate notes for two of the three book-offs is not relevant. The notes he did provide to receive compensation are not legitimate including the one discovered after termination. The explanation that the grievor provided is not credible. The only conclusion that can reasonably be reached is that the notes are fraudulent and that the termination is, therefore, with just cause.”
The grievance was dismissed.
Mark Rogers is a writer and editor who specializes in labour relations and occupational health and safety.
