Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93691 Case Number: AD9420 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: CORAS IOMPAIR EIREANN - and - NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation BC248/93.
Recommendation:
The Court has considered all of the views expressed by the parties
in their oral and written submissions. The Court finds that in
normal circumstances the claiment would not be entitled to the
payment under the scheme.
However, given a) the specific circumstances which apply to the
claimant in the locality in which he is resident and b) the
partricular and possibly urgent needs of the members of his
family, the Court considers the payment should be applied for the
time being.
The matter, the Court considers, should be reviewed on an annual
basis. The Rights Commissioners' Recommendation should be amended
to reflect the above conditions.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93691 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD2094
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
CORAS IOMPAIR EIREANN
AND
NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation BC248/93.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company operates a scheme which provides for general
practitioner services for staff members, their spouses and
children up to the age of 16 years. Since 1993, the scheme
has been funded jointly by the Company and staff. In cases
where a worker lives in an area where no Company panel doctor
operates, the Chief Medical Officer may agree to pay an
annual allowance of #42 on an ex-gratia basis.
2. One of the Company's workers resides in Northern Ireland
and is seeking the #42 payment as no panel doctor is
available in the area where he lives. The Company rejected
the claim as the worker resides in an area where full medical
services are provided free by the State.
3. The Union referred this claim to a Rights Commissioners
and he investigated it on 12th November, 1993. The Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation as follows was issued on 19th
November, 1993.
"In the light of the above my Recommendation is that
C.I.E. should extend to the worker the allowance of #42
per annum in the very unique circumstances outlined
above. This Recommendation is made on the strict and
total understanding that N.B.R.U. will not raise any
other case or claim citing as a precedent this issue of
the worker."
# The worker was named in the recommendation.
4. On 14th December 1993, the Company appealed the
Recommendation to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Labour Court heard the
appeal on 28th January 1993. (the earliest date suitable to
both parties).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker and his family received a free G.P. Service
under the Northern Ireland social security system. He is,
therefore, in a similar position to colleagues who qualify
for medical cards under the General Medical Services Scheme.
These workers are not assigned to a panel doctor nor are they
paid the annual allowance.
2. Many workers attend doctors of their choice who are not
part of the panel scheme. These staff do not qualify for the
allowance. It is the Company's view that the Rights
Commissioner failed to take account of the fact that the
worker receives free G.P. Services and in accordance with the
principle which applies to all staff, the annual allowance is
not payable in such circumstances.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. There is no argument as to the worker's entitlement to
free G.P. Services in Northern Ireland. The worker's
position is unique in that his children are asthmatics and as
a result he must use a doctor in Southern Ireland (details
supplied). The worker must pay for these medical services
and, therefore, the free G.P. service is useless.
2. The scheme is jointly funded and the worker is entitled
to the benefits of the scheme. The worker has no choice but
to use the doctor in Southern Ireland. His circumstances are
unique and this was recognised by the Rights Commissioner
whose recommendation also protects the Company from
repercussive claims. The Union is seeking the implementation
of the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
DECISION:
The Court has considered all of the views expressed by the parties
in their oral and written submissions. The Court finds that in
normal circumstances the claiment would not be entitled to the
payment under the scheme.
However, given a) the specific circumstances which apply to the
claimant in the locality in which he is resident and b) the
partricular and possibly urgent needs of the members of his
family, the Court considers the payment should be applied for the
time being.
The matter, the Court considers, should be reviewed on an annual
basis. The Rights Commissioners' Recommendation should be amended
to reflect the above conditions.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
21st March, 1994 Tom McGrath
J.F./A.L. _______________
Deputy Chairman