The central issue in this case revolved around the validity of a medical certificate submitted by Ms Maseko, a former employee of Woolworths, which ultimately led to her dismissal.
The dispute arose when Woolworths suspected that the medical certificates provided by Ms Maseko, specifically those issued by Dr Frempong were fraudulently obtained. Woolworths’ suspicions were bolstered by an investigation that uncovered potential misconduct in Dr Frempong’s medical practice, as it appeared as though Dr Frempong sold fake medical certificates.
During the arbitration proceedings, Mr Malaka, a Manager from Woolworths, testified that he investigated Ms Maseko’s case and uncovered discrepancies related to her medical certificates. This included discovering a previous medical certificate from Dr Frempong, which Ms Maseko initially denied receiving. However, Ms Maseko testified that a female doctor at the same practice had issued an earlier certificate but she was unaware at the time that this person was not a doctor but Dr Frempong’s assistant. Moreover, Ms Nkambule, another witness for Woolworths, raised concerns over Dr Frempong’s practice, highlighting possible irregularities in issuing medical certificates.
Ms Maseko testified to visiting Dr Frempong and receiving medical attention on the date in question and testified that she was sick on that day. Dr Frempong also gave evidence and corroborated this by confirming his medical assessment and issuance of the certificates.
At arbitration, the Commissioner was tasked with determining whether or not the medical certificate submitted by Ms Maseko on 26 June 2018 was irregular. Crucially, the Commissioner found that, despite the suspicions surrounding Dr Frempong’s practice, there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that Ms Maseko’s medical certificates were false or fraudulently obtained. The Commissioner concluded that the certificates were issued by a qualified medical practitioner, registered with the Health Professions Council of South Africa, and thus deemed them to be valid. Consequently, the Commissioner found Ms Maseko’s dismissal to be substantively unfair.
Unsatisfied with the arbitration award, Woolworths pursued a review application in the Labour Court, citing various grounds including alleged misconduct by the Commissioner and failure to consider pertinent evidence. The Labour Court, however, dismissed the review, determining that the Commissioner had reasonably assessed all evidence presented and made a justifiable decision based on the evidence presented.
Woolworths appealed the decision of the Labour Court to the Labour Appeal Court (“LAC”) and emphasised the alleged irregularities uncovered in Dr Frempong’s practice placed the validity of Ms Maseko’s medical certificates in question. Despite Woolworths’ arguments, the LAC upheld the decision of the Labour Court, confirming that there was no substantial evidence to discredit Ms Maseko’s medical certificate. The LAC predominantly focused on whether Ms Maseko’s certificates were properly obtained and legitimate, rather than the general conduct of Dr Frempong’s practice. On this score, it found the Commissioner’s award fell within a band of reasonable outcomes.
Although employers have the right to scrutinize medical certificates submitted by employees to verify their authenticity, this case serves as a reminder that while suspicions of misconduct in medical practices may arise, the employer is required to prove that the medical certificate issued in the particular matter is fraudulently obtained.
Although the practice of submitting questionable medical certificates is becoming more prevalent, employers should take specialist legal advice before rejecting a medical certificate and charging an employee for dishonesty on this basis.
