FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CORK CORPORATION - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Occupational Injury Benefit - payment of allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court concerns the definition that applies for the payment of Occupational Injury Benefit in the Cork Fire Brigade Sick Leave Scheme for Servant Grades. The present Scheme provides for the payment of accident pay, which is defined as normal sick pay plus performance allowances, when a member of the Fire Brigade is absent from duty as a result of an injury incurred in the actual discharge of his/her duty.
In 1999, the Union lodged a claim for payment of accident pay to a firefighter who was involved in a traffic accident on his journey to work in January, 1999. The employee was absent from work for a period of fifteen weeks. He was paid sick pay in lieu of accident pay as the Corporation did not recognise the injury as an Occupational Injury. However, the worker claimed, and was paid, Occupational Injury Benefit by the Department of Social Welfare, whose definition of an occupational injury was "an accident while on an unbroken journey to or from work". The worker was obliged to refund the Social Welfare
cheque to the Corporation as provided for in the Corporation's Sick Pay Scheme, but he refused to do so on the grounds that the Corporation refused to pay performance allowances to him. A number of meetings were held at local level, but no resolution could be found.
The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission on the 13th of January, 2000. As agreement could not be reached at conciliation, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 18th of February, 2000, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the issue on the 12th of April, 2000, in Cork.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is incumbent on Management to agree a definition of Occupational Injury Benefit. The most appropriate definition is that used by the Department of Social Welfare, namely "an accident while on an unbroken journey to or from work is regarded as an accident at work". It is clear, unequivocal, fair, reasonable and just.
2. Management implicitly accept that the Corporation's Sick Pay Scheme is intrinsically linked with the Social Welfare Scheme by being prepared to accept the Occupational Injury Benefit payment from Social Welfare. However, it should not expect to receive payment, while at the same time refusing to pay allowances on the basis that Occupational Injury Benefit does not apply. This is clearly inconsistent and indefensible.
3. The worker concerned should not have been removed from the Sick Pay Scheme and he should be re-instated immediately.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The current Sick Pay agreement is unique to the Fire Brigade. It provides reasonable cover and recognises the particularly hazardous element of a firefighter's work. However, firefighters are at no greater risk than any other worker while travelling to and from work and, consequently, no special provisions should apply.
2. The worker concerned is in clear breach of the current agreement. He has improperly withheld monies due to the Corporation under two separate and distinct provisions of the agreement. He has been compensated for his loss by the third party involved, but has not made the required refund to the Corporation.
3. The Court is requested to recommend that all parties abide by the current agreement and reject the claim for an extension of the scheme, where the risk to Brigade personnel is no greater than it is for any other worker.
RECOMMENDATION:
While the case before the Court arises as a result of a specific accident, the issues raised have much wider implications.
Having considered carefully all the arguments presented, the Court accepts the Corporation's argument that the risk to Brigade personnel in the instances and occasions mentioned, i.e. travelling to and from work, is no greater than for other employees.
The Court is aware that unique provisions have been made for Brigade personnel in some aspects of the Scheme, but this was clearly on the basis of the job being seen as potentially hazardous.
The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim to extend the Scheme, but recommends that the parties meet to agree a definition of Occupational Injury that would be appropriate to the Scheme.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
20th April, 2000______________________
D.G./C.C.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.