Worker dismissed after being deemed unfit for physically demanding work by the company doctor, but who works out as a ‘bodybuilder’ at the gym
The company had assigned him to light duties, where the weight he had to lift was 4.5 kilos, but at the gym he would lift up to 80
Green light for the dismissal of the worker who, outside working hours, does personal trainer and lifts weights at the gym, up to 80 kilos, despite the local health authority doctor having deemed him fit only for light exercise. This was a recommendation from the Medical Commission taken to the letter by the employer, who had reassigned the employee to a different role. In view of the degenerative conditions affecting his cervical spine, the doctors had, in fact, prescribed a ban on his involvement in activities involving ‘the exertion of forces exceeding level 2 on the Borg scale’. From his role as a skilled worker ‘responsible for sequencing specific assemblies’ for Stellantis, the worker had been assigned to less strenuous tasks involving ‘sequencing windscreens weighing between 3.10 and 4.5 kilograms’.
Breach of the duty of care and good faith
However, the company had ‘discovered’, through investigations, that the employee was regaining his strength outside working hours. On at least two occasions, he had been seen training with weights and equipment designed for bodybuilders and lifting up to 80 kilos. This led to dismissal, upheld by the Court of Appeal, which had deemed such activities (with the exception of working as a personal trainer) to be clearly incompatible with the health requirements set out by the company doctor.
The judges also ruled out the possibility that ‘the small number of incidents, their short duration and the time that had elapsed since the assessment of suitability were factors sufficient to render the conduct not worthy of disciplinary action’. In the view of the Supreme Court, which dismissed the appeal, the employee’s conduct outside the workplace had breached the duties of diligence, fairness, good faith and loyalty, thereby undermining the bond of trust between the parties.
The dismissal is therefore justified on the grounds of failure to comply with the precautions prescribed by the ASL Commission’s doctor: to avoid exerting forces exceeding a value of 2 on the Borg-CR 10 scale, corresponding to ‘light’ exertion, ‘and aimed at preserving the state of health of the worker, who has engaged in behaviour (lifting or pulling weights of 60–80 kg) likely to cause potential harm – as stated in the judgement – not only to his (delicate) physical condition but, also the interests of the employer’. The claim that the investigative report was inadmissible is also irrelevant, given that the appellant himself had not denied the facts.
