[ad_1]
Absence for Illness
A decade or so ago the official is regularly ill. His municipality, Roermond, conducted a physico-taxability study and a diagnosis of occupational physiotherapy. The doctor of the company gives advice on how to promote his health and reduce absenteeism.
Lifestyle
The conference participates actively. The grievor must exercise twice a week, take a class Stop Smoking and be treated by a registered dietitian. In addition, she must do everything to change her lifestyle in a positive way. If the employee demonstrates that she takes the recommendations of the medical staff to heart, respects the agreements made with her employer and continues to function well, she can stay. If she does not adhere to this for the next 24 months, she will be sentenced. She has been warned.
Punishment
Things are going well for a while. Subsequently, the Commission notes that the grievor did not visit the sports center more than once. Smoking cessation treatment was discontinued – with no coordination or knowledge of care. In fact, she has started smoking again, even in places where it is not allowed. She has never made an appointment with the dietitian. She did not use any tool to counteract the effects of sleep apnea. In addition, she was found several times at work during the probation period by several colleagues. Moreover, she was absent without authorization from the place where she had to work for a certain day for four hours. Finally, there are colleagues who report to her because she is not performing her tasks correctly or performing them incorrectly. For the college, the measure is complete: breach of duty, and the sentence is maintained.
Unacceptable offense
This is what the official wants to defend. Because she is not in the Limburg Court, she goes to the Board of Appeal. The case is set aside, according to the decision of June 7, 2018. In the opinion of the Board, the service assignments constitute a radical and unacceptable violation of the privacy and physical integrity of the company. 39; employee. Assignments go outside the employment relationship and directly influence her personal choices, which she does not have to tolerate. A need for these assignments, which would result from the nature of his work is missing. In short, no breach of duty.
Sleeping under work
And sleeping under work? The grievor denied this and the Commission did not concretize it when and under what circumstances it would have occurred. If colleagues claim to disturb her, their statements about "sleep" should not make too much sense. Here too, the breach of duty has not been demonstrated. However, this applies to his unauthorized absence for four hours, but it is too little to impose his sentence. So she can stay. The Board believes that the board should criticize its attitude and behavior and find a solution to a problematic employment relationship. But the path followed, with the attacks on his private life, is impracticable.
Source link
