A MAN was sacked from his factory job after he refused an eight-week back to work plan, an employment tribunal has heard.
William David Astbury, 52, of Connah’s Quay, is suing Flint-based Nice-Pak International for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination after he contracted chronic fatigue syndrome in April 2008.
After being on sick leave for several months from his role as a machine technician he was dismissed in November of that year for ill-health capability after refusing to start a rehabilitation programme which he said was too strenuous.
Natalie Moulton, a personnel officer for the firm who came up with the plan, said no medical experts were consulted and she had not dealt with anyone suffering from this condition before but the programme could have been flexible.
When pressed by the panel why a longer programme could not be offered from the start, she said: “This business at that time had been covering for Mr Astbury for eight months. We felt we had done everything we could in that situation.
“Mr Astbury felt it should be a 24-week programme. He was unwilling to even attempt the rehab.
“He was reminded that not taking on the programme could put his employment at risk.”
Henry Vanderpump, representing Mr Asbury, said there was no medical evidence to suggest eight weeks was long enough for this condition and described the time frame as aggressive.
A chronic syndrome support group attended by Mr Astbury, which included experts, backed a longer programme.
Michael Bird, maintenance manager for Nice-Pak, said: “We had to have an outline in place.
“I think it was important to put down a scheme, but after eight weeks it could have been changed.”
Dr David Gidlow, an occupational health consultant employed by Nice-Pak, said it was important to listen to patients when diagnosing a rehab programme for chronic fatigue sufferers.
He said: “I was hopeful he would improve and could go back to work. I supported that they needed to do it, but I could not say whether it would have worked.
“I supported the template. It was not set in stone. Only in retrospect can you say if it is reasonable.”
The tribunal continues in Abergele today.