Spying on sick employees could cost you six figures

Guidance from an HR consultant in Ipswich on what recent tribunal cases tell us about covert surveillance of employees on sick leave, and what you should do instead.

Three employers have recently been hit with tribunal findings of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination after secretly monitoring staff who were off sick.

One of those employers is now facing a bill of more than £329,000.

All three made the same fundamental mistake. They jumped from surveillance footage to dismissal without getting proper medical input first.

If you've ever had a nagging suspicion that someone on your team isn't genuinely unwell, you'll want to know what went wrong and how to protect yourself.

Here's what you need to know.

What to do before you even think about surveillance

Let me start with the practical steps, because I think that's what most business owners actually want.

If you suspect someone is exaggerating or fabricating their illness, your first move should be an occupational health referral. Get an independent medical opinion on the person's condition and whether their reported symptoms line up with the clinical picture.

Before that referral, you should also be running proper return-to-work meetings every time the employee comes back from a period of absence. A structured absence management process creates a paper trail. It also often resolves the concern on its own, without any need for surveillance.

If you've done both of those things and you still believe fraud is a real possibility, get professional HR advice before commissioning any kind of monitoring. And if monitoring does happen and footage is gathered, have a medical professional review it before you take any action.

Don't interpret what you see on camera through your own lens. That's exactly where the employers in these recent cases went wrong.

The cases that should make you pause

Three recent tribunal decisions all followed a remarkably similar pattern. In each one, the employer hired investigators, gathered footage, and then moved straight to dismissal for gross misconduct.

Pilkington UK employed a team leader called Alan Jones, who was on sick leave with radiation-induced neuropathy following cancer treatment. The company hired a surveillance firm and filmed him doing physical work on a friend's farm. Pilkington treated the footage as proof of secondary employment and sacked him. They didn't seek any medical opinion on whether the activity was actually inconsistent with his condition. They also shifted the allegation mid-process without giving him a fair chance to respond. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair. The award exceeded £329,000.

Aliaxis, a plastics manufacturer, had a warehouse operative called Neil Wilson who was off with chronic back pain. They hired a private investigator and reviewed his social media. Based on footage showing him "moving freely," they cancelled his salary and told him he could resign, face capability proceedings, or be reported to the police for fraud. The tribunal found the company was "overly eager" to push him out. Wilson was awarded £30,682 for unfair and discriminatory dismissal.

BMW employed a factory worker, Mohamed Kerita, who was signed off with chronic back pain. BMW hired a security firm and filmed him carrying out everyday activities like walking and bending over his car. They concluded he'd fraudulently claimed sick pay and dismissed him. The tribunal found that medical evidence supported his inability to do his physically demanding role, that the footage didn't prove otherwise, and that he wasn't even receiving company sick pay at the time the filming took place. The dismissal was ruled unfair and discriminatory. A remedy hearing is still pending.

The thread running through all of them is clear. Surveillance footage was treated as conclusive proof, without any medical input to put it in context.

Is covert monitoring actually lawful?

It can be. But the bar is high.

Under UK GDPR, you need a lawful basis for collecting personal data through surveillance. The ICO says covert monitoring should only happen in exceptional circumstances, specifically where informing the employee would undermine the purpose of the investigation.

Before any surveillance begins, you'll need to carry out a Data Protection Impact Assessment. The monitoring has to be proportionate and limited in scope. Following someone based on a gut feeling is very different from targeted surveillance backed by specific, documented concerns.

It also helps to have a policy in place that makes your team aware covert surveillance is a possibility in certain situations. If evidence from surveillance is ever challenged at tribunal, having that policy significantly strengthens your position.

The disability discrimination risk you might be overlooking

Conditions like chronic back pain and neuropathy qualify as disabilities under the Equality Act 2010, even when the person doesn't "look" disabled from the outside.

If someone's absence is connected to a disability and you surveil them and then dismiss them, you're exposed to claims for both unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.

Here's the financial risk. Disability discrimination awards have no cap. And from January 2027, the compensation cap for unfair dismissal is being removed too. That means if a tribunal rules against you, there's no ceiling on what you could be ordered to pay.

For a small business, that's a potentially devastating outcome. HR consultancy services in Ipswich can help you avoid that kind of exposure by making sure you follow a fair process from the outset.

What a fair process actually looks like

Let me pull the practical steps together in order:

• Start with structured absence management. Hold return-to-work meetings. Keep records of every conversation.

• Refer the employee to occupational health for an independent assessment.

• If concerns remain after those steps, seek HR advice before going any further.

• If surveillance is genuinely warranted, carry out a Data Protection Impact Assessment first and ensure monitoring is proportionate and time-limited.

• If footage is gathered, get a medical professional to assess what it actually shows before making any decisions.

Skipping any of those steps puts you at serious risk. The three cases above prove that.

Don't leave yourself exposed

I understand the frustration. You're paying someone who you suspect isn't genuinely ill, and your team is picking up the slack. It's natural to want proof.

But acting on that impulse without the right process can turn a manageable situation into a six-figure problem.

As an outsourced HR consultant in Ipswich, I work with small businesses on absence management, occupational health referrals, and fair investigation processes.

If you've got a situation like this brewing, let's have a confidential conversation about it.

Get in touch and we can talk through your options before you make a move you can't take back.