FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : NORTH EASTERN HEALTH BOARD - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Sick pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union has submitted a claim on behalf of a worker for the retrospective granting of an extension of the sick pay scheme or paid leave for a 22 week period during which the worker was on stress related sick leave. The Union claims that this was due to bullying in the workplace and the delay in the way the case was investigated by management.
Management rejected the Union's claim. It states efforts were made to source alternative work in the same discipline that would be acceptable to the worker. However, the offers were rejected by the worker. The worker was employed in a temporary capacity.
The worker referred the dispute to the Labour Court on 13th November, 2002 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on the 10th of April, 2003.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker has paid a heavy price for pursuing her right to fair work conditions and should be compensated for her financial losses.
2. If counselling had been provided at an earlier date it is possible that this would have negated the need for stress related absence from work.
3. The worker's absence from work was a direct consequence of the failure of management to deal with the allegations of bullying by her line manager.
4. Even when the worker was certified as fit to resume work her employers failed to offer her a position she could reasonably have been expected to accept.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker had the terms of the sick pay scheme applied to her in a manner consistent with that applied to all temporary officers of health boards.
2. The worker was facilitated with offers of alternative work locations, which she declined.
3. While the worker's absence was medically certified as stress- related there is no evidence to suggest that this stress was attributable to the line manager. Management reject the claim that they are accountable for her absence from work.
4. The Board's sick pay scheme is consistent with that in operation in the other health boards and compares favourably with schemes in operation for temporary employees in the private sector.
5. The Board has a comprehensive stress management policy which has been followed in dealing with the worker's complaint. Management is satisfied that its obligations to all employees involved in this investigation have been discharged in full.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the oral and written submissions of both parties the Court is of the view that due to the extenuating circumstances in the case,viz
�having been certified fit to resume work the claimant was not offered a suitable alternative position for a period of ten weeks coupled with the delay in processing her status as a permanent employee.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the claimant should be granted a further 10 weeks sick pay.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
23rd April, 2003______________________
LW/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.