The court ruled in favor of the worker. The management of a stamp shop in São Jorge de Silho, in Guimarães, transferred the worker, in the same plant unit, to another department/job, “where the working environment, in terms of ventilation and atmosphere, offers less conditions, and more when there is a recommendation of the professional medical services.” To keep him in the same job for pulmonary health reasons.” The employee refused the order of the company he works for and punished him with losing one day of vacation.
He then complained to the Employment Tribunal, which ruled in his favour, but the factory appealed to the Court of Appeal, which has now affirmed the decision, concluding that it “did not appear to be in accordance with good faith and health protection rules”. At work. Transfer order.
In 2021, the worker did not accept the order to change department and job, “for reasons of health well known to the company, and because the pavilion in which he will have to carry out the task is less ventilated, with two diesel forklifts permanently in motion, and the release of toxic gases into the air, affecting the equipment.” Respiratory and health.
By the way, – he argued in the procedure – “it appears in his clinical file for Medicine at Work that he must perform the functions in the department in which he is, by reason of illness.”
I was going to replace another patient
The sealing company objected, arguing that since 2017, the worker, on medical recommendation, has performed jobs in the first section of the factory, which aims to open the net and prepare for dyeing; and that, in March 2021, he did not honor the order to transfer to another department in order to temporarily replace the worker who is going to undergo surgery; At that time, he did not invoke health reasons.”
Management also states that “there was only a medical recommendation and not an imposition in the sense that the author keeps the same jobs and that he would go to the knitting finishing ward and where the already processed product/net arrives, ‘go to the body’.”
He added, “At this stage, this finish is devoid of any materials that could be harmful to health.”
He stressed that “in the face of the author’s refusal, he had to assign two other workers who had no experience with the machinery and already had heavy workloads.”
The employee filed a counterclaim and the appeals court judges agreed with his “refusal.” They stress that “this change was intended to replace another worker for an insignificant period of three months and another worker was able and willing to make such a replacement”.
They concluded: “In such a context, the worker’s refusal is justified” stating that he “will not go until he undergoes a medical evaluation.”
“Writer. Analyst. Avid travel maven. Devoted twitter guru. Unapologetic pop culture expert. General zombie enthusiast.”
