We investigated the recent judicial precedents on reinstatement, resignation and dismissal after injury or disease among professional drivers.
We examined cases involving fifteen male professional drivers. The causes of absence from work (with some overlap) included five injuries, five cases of nervous or musculoskeletal system disorder, two chronic disease cases, two psychiatric disorder cases, one cancer case, one cerebrovascular disease case, and one case of adverse drug reaction. Of these, three cases were sentenced as wrongful dismissal, and eight were sentenced to effective dismissal.
Frequency, discerning whether dismissals between drivers and the company are court-approved is challenging. For example, though a medical leave order can be issued at the companyʼs discretion, drivers on medical leave may be dismissed or force out of work if they do not recover fully. Therefore, the medical leave order and the temporary retirement period must be communicated clearly. In addition, professional drivers are limited to jobs that require them to drive business vehicles. They cannot be reinstated unless a safe driving environment can be assured. Lately, however, there have been judicial precedents in which are the company has had to provide some sort of attention for drivers on medical leave.
Many companies in the transportation field do not have industrial doctors. Thus, a medical doctor unfamiliar with the transportation business environment may issue a fit-to-work certificate for the drivers. Simultaneously, the employer might determine whether drivers can be reinstated independently. Given such arbitrary measures, the entire transport industry must consider and set criteria for drivers returning to driving work from injury or disease. Furthermore, it must adopt a system allowing drivers to continue their required treatment free from anxiety while working.
View full abstract