There’s a funny misconception in the workplace that occupational health reports are supposed to “back the employer”. And there’s a misconception amongst employees that occupational health should only ever support them.

Neither are quite right.

A good OH report isn’t there to help HR win an argument or justify a dismissal – nor is it there to blindly regurgitate an employee’s requests, framing them as independent clinical advice. It’s there to offer the clinical opinion — clearly, independently and without bias.

And tribunals are getting increasingly vocal when that doesn’t happen.

Take Gallop v Newport City Council, where the employer leaned heavily on occupational health advice saying the employee wasn’t disabled. The Court of Appeal basically said: you can’t just rubber-stamp poor medical advice and hope for the best. Employers are expected to think critically and act reasonably, not hide behind vague reports.

More recently, tribunals have criticised employers for relying on weak or incomplete OH recommendations while failing to explore obvious adjustments. One tribunal involving Npower highlighted a “continuous management failure” after occupational health advice around workplace adjustments was ignored, ultimately leading to discrimination findings.

And the costs? Eye-watering.

One employer ended up facing a £75,000 award after ignoring occupational health advice around reasonable adjustments for an employee with cervical spondylosis. Another case reportedly resulted in a £188,000 tribunal win after managers treated OH guidance as optional paperwork rather than expert evidence.

But here’s the important bit: tribunals also regularly show how good occupational health advice protects employers.

When OH reports are balanced, evidence-based and properly followed, they can demonstrate that an employer acted reasonably and fairly. In disability cases especially, tribunals often look for evidence that employers sought expert advice, asked sensible questions, explored adjustments and genuinely engaged with the medical evidence.

That’s why independence matters so much.

A proper occupational health clinician should sometimes tell the employer things they don’t particularly want to hear. Maybe the employee is fit for work, despite long absence. Maybe they’re not. Maybe dismissal would be premature. Maybe adjustments are entirely realistic. The point is that the opinion must be medically grounded — not commercially convenient.

Research from the Society of Occupational Medicine has repeatedly highlighted the financial value of effective OH input, particularly in reducing long-term sickness absence, litigation risk and management costs. And with more than 130,000 employment tribunal decisions now publicly searchable in the UK, patterns are becoming very clear: poor process plus poor OH advice is a dangerous combination.

Honestly, the best occupational health reports are often the ones that annoy everyone slightly. They’re balanced. Nuanced. Practical. They don’t exaggerate risk, but they don’t minimise it either.

Because ultimately, occupational health isn’t there to take sides.

It’s there to help employers make safe, lawful and fair decisions — before a tribunal has to do it for them.