FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : THORSMAN IRELAND LTD - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR13380/03/JH
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures plastic fixings for the electrical industry and has been in operation for twenty eight years. The worker has been in employment with the Company for five years.In September 2002, the worker injured his knee while playing a football game with his work colleagues, he was unfit for work for four weeks and was paid by the Company during his absence. In November,2002, the worker, while playing football, injured his knee again resulting in a longer absence from work.He submitted medical certificates to the Company who paid his wages for a further nine weeks until the 9th January, 2003. The claim before the Court is for extended sick leave pay for periods of absence from work.
- The Company do not have a written sick pay scheme, but general practice is to pay for twenty six weeks. It is a discretionary scheme so twenty six weeks is not paid in all cases.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. The Rights Commissioner accepted that the Company's sick pay scheme was discretionary and that it would not be the type of situation which the Company would expect to cover from an uninsured scheme over an extended period, it was also accepted that the worker's explanation regarding his absence and the manner in which the illness re-occurred to be credible. The Recommendation issued on the 15th October, 2003, as follows:- “Based on the submissions made I recommend that the worker receive an additional €200 net from the Company as a gesture of good will and in settlement of his claim.”
- The Worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
On the 5th November, 2003, the worker appealed the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13th February, 2004.
- The Worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.This is the first time a worker has been cut off pay before 26 weeks have expired and the reasons given by the Company are unfair and without foundation.
2.The workers feels he has been discriminated against.
3.The Company's profits appear to come before the worker's rights to seek and receive medical treatment if needed.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The worker's injury resulted from a social game of football and was brought about by his own negligence, it was not played on Company time or premises.
2.The Company has accepted the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and this is the first time that a recommendation has been appealed to the Labour Court.
3.The Company's view is that they treated the worker in a fair manner.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties in this case the Court can see no basis upon which it should interfere with the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner. Accordingly the recommendation is affirmed and the appeal is disallowed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
8th March 2004______________________
JO'CChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.