FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Loss of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant is a train driver with 27 years experience and is based at the Inchicore Depot. Whilst working the 15.05 passenger train from Heuston to Waterford an incident occurred which necessitated a visit to St James's Hospital to have his eyes checked for possible glass fragments.
The Claimant was off work for a number of weeks following the incident and was paid sick leave as per the Company Sick Pay Scheme. Upon his return to work the Claimant queried as to why he was not paid for his contracted hours as is usual after an occupational injury. The Company rejected his claim for loss of earnings, saying that the incident fell outside of the strict criteria that is applied.
On the 29th October, 2010 the Worker referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 20th January, 2011. The Worker agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. During the period he was absent from work he attended the Chief Medical Officer in Marlborough St on a number of occasions. He was advised to attend a specialist and on completion of this treatment he returned to his GP in order to receive a final certificate regarding his fitness to return to work.
2.Any correspondence between the Company and the Chief Medical Officer has never been revealed to the Worker or the Union.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Worker received all of his entitlements under the welfare scheme in line with C.I.E. policy, as agreed with all the Trade Unions.
2. The claim was processed properly in accordance with the Grievance and Disciplinary process and in line with the Chief Medical Officer's advice.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties in this case. The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
27th January, 2011______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.