A 59-year-old worker, laid off during extended sick leave after almost 36 years at the same company, was awarded compensation of more than £329,000, around €380,000. The employer alleged suspicions that the man was working for third parties while he was on leave, but the court considered that the decision was not supported by sufficient evidence or adequate medical evaluation.
According to , a Spanish website specializing in labor matters, the case took place in the United Kingdom and involves Alan Jones, a worker from St Helens, in northwest England. Decisions from the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal confirm that Pilkington UK Limited accused the worker of taking on a second job during the extended sick leave, but the judges concluded that the dismissal was unfair and that there was discrimination arising from disability under the Equality Act 2010.
I worked at the company since 1983
The worker had been linked to the company since 1983, the year he joined as an apprentice. According to the Employment Tribunal decision, he completed his apprenticeship in 1986 and, in 2002, became team leader, a position he held at the time of his dismissal.
His health situation changed after treatment for Hodgkin’s lymphoma in the 1980s. Years later, Alan Jones developed radiation-induced neuropathy, a chronic and progressive condition that caused significant muscle loss in his right shoulder, his dominant side.
According to the court ruling, the company accepted that this physical condition constituted a disability for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. The court further recognized that depression and anxiety also met the legal criteria for disability at the relevant period of the case.
Company resorted to private surveillance
The company began to suspect that Alan Jones was working during his period of sick leave after receiving information to that effect, including reports that he had been seen on a farm wearing work boots. Faced with these suspicions, he decided to resort to private surveillance.
The images collected showed the worker with a friend, accompanying him on a trip linked to a farm and occasionally moving a small bag of potatoes and a hose. The company interpreted these moments as proof that you would be able to work or that you were carrying out another activity during your leave.
According to Real Employment Law Advice, Alan Jones explained in the disciplinary process that going to the farm had been encouraged as part of supporting his mental health, to help reduce anxiety and isolation, and that he did not carry out heavy tasks. The company, however, was fired for serious misconduct in October 2019.
Court spoke of failures in the investigation
The court had another reading. According to the Employment Tribunal’s decision, the company did not properly evaluate what was seen in the images and did not confirm whether the suspicions corresponded to the facts. The judges also considered that Pilkington did not ask for an updated opinion from a medical consultant before concluding that those movements were incompatible with the worker’s health status.
For the court, the surveillance footage did not demonstrate that Alan Jones was in a position to return to his usual post, nor did it prove that he had committed fraud during his medical leave.
The worker ended up going to court, with support from the Unite union and Thompsons Solicitors, alleging unfair dismissal and employment discrimination linked to his disability. The Employment Tribunal agreed with him and the Employment Appeal Tribunal rejected the company’s appeal in 2023.
The decision also pointed out some contributory guilt on the part of the worker in the way he responded during the disciplinary process, set at 20%, but this did not change the main conclusion: the behavior did not justify summary dismissal without prior notice.
Sick leave does not prevent all activity
One of the central points of the case is the difference between being on sick leave and carrying out specific acts on a daily basis.
The court understood that helping someone in a limited way or carrying out isolated movements does not, in itself, prove the ability to perform normal professional functions. This assessment required clinical framing and not just partial observation.
The judges stressed that an employer cannot base a dismissal solely on suspicions or interpretations of images, especially when an employee with a recognized disability is involved and when there is no adequate medical evaluation.
Compensation of around 380 thousand euros
According to Thompsons Solicitors, which represented the worker, Pilkington ended up paying more than 329 thousand pounds in compensation to Alan Jones, a value that corresponds to approximately 380 thousand euros. Real Employment Law Advice describes the outcome as a settlement that included compensation for lost earnings.
The high value reflects the worker’s seniority, the loss of employment after almost 36 years of employment, the loss of income and the discriminatory framework recognized by the courts.
The case also shows the limits of employer surveillance when it is used to justify labor sanctions. Image collection can serve as an element of analysis, but it does not replace robust evidence or medical evaluation when the central question is whether or not the worker is fit.
What this case shows
The decision does not mean that a worker on sick leave can freely carry out another activity without consequences.
If there is fraud, simulation of incapacity or exercise of activity incompatible with removal, a company may take disciplinary action. But you will have to prove the facts, demonstrate incompatibility and respect legal procedures. In this case, the court understood that the company was unable to do this.
And in Portugal?
In Portugal, the outcome of a similar case would always depend on the concrete facts. Medical leave corresponds to a Certificate of Temporary Incapacity and can give access to sickness benefit, as long as Social Security requirements are met, including medical certification of incapacity.
The Portuguese Labor Code prohibits discriminatory practices, particularly due to reduced work capacity, disability or chronic illness, in accordance with articles 24 and 25. It also establishes, in article 351, that just cause requires culpable behavior on the part of the employee which, due to its severity and consequences, makes the maintenance of the employment relationship immediately and practically impossible.
Furthermore, articles 381, 382 and 387 of the CLT provide that the dismissal may be unlawful when the reason is unfounded, when there is a lack of adequate procedure or when legal rules are not respected, and it is up to the court to assess the regularity and lawfulness of the dismissal.
Therefore, a Portuguese company should not dismiss solely based on suspicions or isolated observations. If you believe that medical license is being abused, you will have to gather evidence, respect the disciplinary procedure and, when clinical fitness is decisive, rely on appropriate medical evidence.
For the worker, the rule is also clear: during sick leave, they must avoid behavior that is incompatible with their declared incapacity, under penalty of facing consequences at work and with Social Security.
Also read:
