The Labour Appeal Court recently upheld the decision to reinstate Lorraine Maseko, a store specialist at a Woolworths branch in Emalahleni, after finding her dismissal to be substantively unfair.
Labour Court throws out Woolworths fake sick note case
According to court documents seen by Swisher Post, Woolworths terminated Maseko’s employment in 2018, alleging that she had submitted fraudulent medical certificates to justify her absence from work.
The court ruled that the retailer failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that Maseko knew the certificates were fraudulent.
The judgment emphasised the need for employers to meet stringent legal standards when presenting evidence in employment disputes.
As a result, the court ordered Maseko’s reinstatement and compensation for lost wages.
Did Woolies discriminate against Maseko in their investigation?
Woolworths’ investigation into the alleged fake sick notes began in June 2018 and involved private investigators who probed Dr. Frempong’s medical practice.
The investigators discovered irregularities at the doctor’s practice, leading Woolworths to suspect that Maseko’s medical certificates were fraudulent.
However, the court found that Woolworths did not adequately prove that Maseko was aware of any irregularities.
The socioeconomic dynamics of the investigation raised concerns about potential discrimination.
Maseko, relying on the medical system as an average worker, could not be reasonably expected to verify a doctor’s qualifications.
The court highlighted that ordinary employees should not bear the burden of confirming the legitimacy of medical practitioners, thus protecting workers from unfair dismissal based on unverified suspicions.
Woolworths ordered to reinstate Maseko
In its final ruling, the Labour Appeal Court ordered Woolworths to reinstate Lorraine Maseko to her previous position without loss of benefits and continuity of service.
Additionally, Woolworths was directed to compensate Maseko for the period she was unemployed due to the unfair dismissal.
The court also mandated Woolworths to cover the costs of the arbitration proceedings and the review application.