The Complaint
Mr. Lau had been an assembly-line worker at a food packaging company for almost 10 years. He took sick leave for several weeks when he developed severe back pain. Upon resuming work, he submitted a medical certificate to his supervisor that advised he should only perform "light duty" or take up work that was physically not demanding. However, the supervisor took no heed of the advice and made him continue with his work. This made Mr. Lau fall sick again for a few days. About a month later, he was assigned to perform similar tasks but for a different production line. However, he found working in the new line physically more demanding because the packaging materials were heavier.
One day Mr. Lau had a dispute with his supervisor over some work procedures. Later the company issued a warning letter to Mr. Lau for his poor attitude towards senior staff. He disagreed with the content and refused to sign the letter. A few days later, he was transferred to work on the night shift without reasons or prior notice.
He was upset and believed that he was discriminated against because the company (a) ignored his request for light duty despite providing a medical certificate, (b) issued him a warning letter citing bad attitude towards supervisor, and (c) deployed him to work on the night shift. Mr. Lau found the overall work environment beyond his tolerance and resigned.
Later Mr. Lau lodged a complaint of disability discrimination against the company with the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC).
What the EOC did
Upon receiving the complaint the EOC case officer investigated into the matter. The company explained that it could not immediately accommodate Mr. Lau's request for light duty because they needed time to find a suitable position for him. They explained that he was later transferred to work on the night shift because he was a very experienced worker and could coach the newcomers.
While the complainant and the company disagreed on some issues, both parties made good use of conciliation to resolve the matter. The case was settled after the company agreed to pay Mr. Lau a monetary compensation worth more than his yearly wages.
What the law says
Under the Disability Discrimination Ordinance (DDO), it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against the employees with disability or sickness by subjecting them to detriment [DDO, section 6 (a)]. In this case, the fact that the employer failed to provide accommodation could be detrimental to the employee, unless the employer could prove that the provision of accommodation would cause the company unjustifiable hardship. Accommodation refers to any modification or adjustment to a job or the work environment that makes it possible for an individual with a disability to enjoy equal employment opportunities. As a good management practice, it is advisable to communicate clearly with the staff the reasons for transfer (either to a new post or to a new shift) to avoid misunderstanding.
Source: Equal Opportunities Commission
Updated: 15 December 2009
