An employer made replacement work a condition for sick pay – the court ruled that this is not permissible
TEXT TIIA KYYNÄRÄINEN ILLUSTRATION ESKO KUMPUNEN
The Labour Court of Finland confirmed that the correct interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement is that, as a condition for the payment of sick pay, the employer cannot require an employee to perform work that corresponds to the employee’s ability to work but is not in accordance with the employee’s employment contract – that is, so-called replacement work.
An employee of a lumber company was injured in a workplace accident. All of the tasks specified in the employee’s employment contract were physical in nature. The company also had a system for arranging replacement work that was not based on a collective bargaining agreement.
Due to a workplace accident, the employee contacted the occupational healthcare clinic designated by the employer. Since the occupational healthcare physician designated by the employer had no available appointments, the employee made an appointment with another occupational healthcare physician at the occupational healthcare clinic. According to the medical certificate issued by the physician, the employee was not fit for light-duty or replacement work due to their illness.
After the employee’s first sick leave period ended, the employee visited a physician again, who also determined that the employee was unfit for work and not suited for light-duty or replacement work.
The employer refused to pay the employee sick pay on the grounds that the employee had refused to report to replacement work, citing the medical certificates they had received.
The employer company had a company-specific collective bargaining agreement in place.
THE LABOUR COURT FOUND THAT THE COMPANY HAD ACTED WRONGLY
According to the Labour Court, the company had acted in violation of the collective bargaining agreement by failing to pay the employee their sick pay on the grounds that the employee had refused to perform light-duty or replacement work.
The Labour Court found that it had not been substantiated in the case that the employer had required the employee to visit the occupational healthcare physician specifically designated by the company or to contact such a physician. Therefore, the employee could not be considered to have refused to verify their inability to work in the manner required by the employer. The employer therefore had no grounds for withholding the employee’s pay for the duration of the sick leave.
The Labour Court also confirmed that the correct interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement is that, as a condition for the payment of sick pay, the employer cannot require an employee to perform work that corresponds to the employee’s ability to work but is not in accordance with the employee’s employment contract—that is, so-called replacement work.
The Labour Court ordered the company to pay the Industrial Union a penalty of 3,000 euros for knowingly violating the collective bargaining agreement and to reimburse the Industrial Union for its legal costs of 13,190 euros, including interest for late payment.
The ruling was unanimous.
