Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92528 Case Number: LCR13796 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL - and - A WORKER |
Dispute concerning the removal of the worker from the Council's sick pay scheme.
Recommendation:
8. Having considered the submissions from the parties and the
various elements of the claim the Court is satisfied that the
Council's position is not unreasonable.
The Court notes the undertaking of the Council to restore the
claimant to the sick pay scheme in the event of serious certified
illness in the future.
The Court recommends that the Council further review his
attendance record in January, 1993 and, provided his attendance
has continued to improve, it gives favourable consideration to
restoring him, in full, to the scheme.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92528 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13796
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the removal of the worker from the
Council's sick pay scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. Under the Council's sick-pay scheme a worker receives the
difference between disability benefit and nett pay for a period of
12 weeks in any year thus ensuring no loss of earnings for that
period. The scheme is non-contributory and is funded by the
Council.
3. The worker has been employed by the Council since 1979 and is
currently employed as a driver. He had lengthy absences during
the years 1982 to 1989 (details supplied to the Court). The
worker received a number of verbal warnings concerning his
attendance record and on 27th September, 1989 he was issued with a
written warning. Between 27th September, 1989 and 22nd January
the worker had 3 sick leave absences totalling 62 days. Following
a meeting held on 23rd January, 1990 between the Council and the
worker (at which he was represented by his Union) he was issued
with a further written warning and removed from the sick-pay
scheme until further notice.
4. The worker had a further fifty-three certified sick days
covering 4 periods up to 18th June, 1991. A meeting was held
between the Council and the worker and his Union at which it was
agreed that the benefits of the sick pay scheme would be restored
to him, as a gesture of goodwill, for two months to allow him
receive treatment for the problem which he stated was causing his
absence from work. It was also agreed that he would be issued
with a further written warning concerning his poor attendance
record. On his return to work on 14th October, 1991 he was issued
with the written warning. Since that date the worker's attendance
has been satisfactory.
5. The worker subsequently applied to have the benefits of the
sick pay scheme restored to him. The Council rejected the
worker's application. The worker referred the dispute to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. The Council
declined an invitation to attend a Rights Commissioner's hearing.
The worker then referred the dispute to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Court hearing took place on 8th
October, 1992. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The worker never abused the sick pay scheme. He submitted
medical certificates for all his illnesses.
2. The nature of his illness was such that it required
prolonged treatment over many years. The situation was made
worse by the fact that, at one stage, he was put on wrong
medication (details supplied to the Court).
3. The worker's record is no worse than that of some of his
colleagues who still benefit under the sick pay scheme.
4. The worker was subjected to harassment about his work
performance. One incident was the subject of a Rights
Commissioner's investigation which found in his favour
(details supplied to the Court).
5. The worker had to use annual leave instead of sick leave
and he is seeking compensation in respect of same. The Court
is asked to recommend that the worker be restored to the sick
pay scheme and that the Council pay compensation for the
mental aggravation and harassment suffered.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The worker had an unsatisfactory attendance record and
despite numerous warnings failed to improve same.
2. The Council's decision to withdraw the benefits of the
sick pay scheme is consistent with action taken by it in
similar cases in the past.
3. As well as having an unsatisfactory attendance record the
worker has also come under unfavourable notice regarding his
work performance and has been disciplined.
4. Since his removal from the sick pay scheme there has been
a dramatic improvement in his attendance record which, in the
Council's view, vindicates its decision.
5. The Council will, in exceptional circumstances, give
favourable consideration to restoring the benefits of the sick
pay scheme to the worker.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. Having considered the submissions from the parties and the
various elements of the claim the Court is satisfied that the
Council's position is not unreasonable.
The Court notes the undertaking of the Council to restore the
claimant to the sick pay scheme in the event of serious certified
illness in the future.
The Court recommends that the Council further review his
attendance record in January, 1993 and, provided his attendance
has continued to improve, it gives favourable consideration to
restoring him, in full, to the scheme.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_____________________
16th October, 1992. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.