FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ST VINCENT DE PAUL (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Loss Of Earnings Due To Stress As A Result Of Management Actions.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns an allegation by the Worker that she was struck by a member of the Employer's managing committee, and that the Employer's failure to deal with this incident caused her work-related stress. The Worker is seeking compensation for loss of earnings suffered as a result of having to go on sick leave due to this work-related stress.
The Worker referred her case to the Labour Court on 2nd September, 2009, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Worker agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 2nd March, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. This entire incident arose from the Worker being struck by a member of the Employer's managing committee.
2. This was compounded by the Employer's failure to investigate this incident in a timely and independent manner.
3.The Worker suffered significant financial loss, thorough no fault of her own, and should be compensated accordingly.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The alleged incident which the Worker complained of was thoroughly investigated on two occasions and on each occasion it was concluded that there was no merit in her complaint.
2. The Worker's claim that this incident caused her so much stress that she was forced to take sick leave is undermined by the fact that she still attended for work for some two days after this alleged incident.
3.The Worker chose to take sick leave and accuse the Employer of causing her stress in order to protect herself from the possibility of disciplinary action being taken against her in relation to other matters.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the positions of both parties as expressed in their oral and written submissions, in all the circumstances of this case the Court is satisfied that Management discharged its obligations fairly by the payment of sick pay for the requisite six weeks as provided by the Organisation’s sick pay scheme. In this case, the Court does not find that there were exceptional circumstances justifying an extension of sick pay for a further period of eleven weeks as claimed.
Accordingly, the Court rejects the claim.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
15th March, 2010______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.