FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : HSE WEST - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioners Recommendation No: r-122001-ir-12/MH.
BACKGROUND:
2. This is an appeal by the worker of Rights Commissioners Recommendation No: r-122001-ir-12/MH. The issue concerns an employee of the HSE West and the continuing payment of an Injury Grant in line with the provisions of Section 109 of the Local Government (Superannuation) (Consolidation) Scheme 1998. The Union contends that the payment should have continued as the worker continued to meet the eligibility criteria. Management contend that the worker was fit to return to work, albeit it on a phased basis, and the payment of the Injury Grant was inappropriate in those circumstances.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. A Recommendation issued on the 1st August 2013 and did not find in favour of the worker's claim. On 15th August 2013 the worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 19th March 2014.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The worker was involved in a serious road accident while at work and sustained serious injuries. These injuries prevented the worker from returning to work for a significant amount of time. The worker was subsequently certified as fit to return to work on a phased basis and sought the continuation of the Injury Grant payment in the event that his phased return was unsuccessful necessitating a further sickness absence from work. Management subsequently removed the payment of the Injury Grant and delayed in issuing correspondence to the Department of Social and Family Affairs which further added to the worker's financial difficulties.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 Management contends that the continuing payment of Injury Grant was inappropriate in the circumstances. While on sick leave the worker received sick pay in line with the Occupational Sick Pay Scheme and received a further extension on the basis of his health problems at that time. The worker was subsequently declared fit to resume work and on that basis payment of the Injury Grant was no longer appropriate. Management subsequently made every effort to have the worker return to work in line with the approved rehabilitation plan. Unfortunately the worker did not comply and his return to work was delayed significantly as a result.
DECISION:
This is an appeal by the Union on behalf of an employee against a Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation which found against his claim for payment of Injury Grant as provided under Section 109 of the Superannuation Scheme. This payment applies to employees who are injured in the course of their employment.
The Appellant was employed as a Driver since 1995. He was involved in a serious road traffic accident in the course of his work on 10thSeptember 2008.
He was paid sick pay from 10thSeptember 2008 until 12thMay 2009 at which point he was paid Injury Grant under the terms of Section 109 of the Superannuation Scheme. This payment was paid up to 7thJuly 2010 when payment ceased as it was deemed that he was fit to return to work on a phased basis. The Union disputed the cessation of the payment stating that it had sought a letter from Management informing the Department of Social and Family Affairs of the Appellant’s reduced working week and phased return-to-work plans which it stated was not furnished until 12thSeptember 2011. The Appellant returned to work on 26thSeptember 2011.
Having considered the submissions of both parties the Court notes that the Appellant’s own Medical Advisor by letter dated 8thJuly 2010 certified him fit to return to work on a phased basis. This was confirmed by the HSE Occupational Physician on 2ndSeptember 2010 and by a Specialist in Occupational Health Medicine on 7thMarch 2011. However, the Appellant did not return to work until 26thSeptember 2011.
The Court does not accept that the matter of a letter from Management constitutes a reason not to comply with the medical recommendations and accordingly finds that it was appropriate in the circumstances to discontinue Injury Grant where the Appellant was no longer meeting the criteria for payment.
Therefore the Court upholds the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation and rejects the appeal.
The Court so Decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
19th May 2014______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.