FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MEDISIZE IRELAND LTD T/A PHILLIPS MEDISIZE - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Compensation.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute arose from the Worker's suspension from the Company's Income Continuance Plan. The Worker referred this case to the Labour Court on 29th May, 2014, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 25th September, 2014. The Company declined to attend this Hearing.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The unilateral decision to remove the Worker from the Plan was unfair and arbitrary.
2. The Worker was denied fair procedures and denied an opportunity to participate in the decision making process.
3.The Worker was also denied the opportunity to appeal this decision.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue before the Court concerns a claim by the Claimant relating to her suspension from her former employer’s Income Continuance Plan (the Plan). The Claimant’s employment terminated on 7thJanuary 2013. The claim was submitted under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 on 7thNovember 2013.
The Claimant stated that on 20thMay 2011 she became aware that she had been suspended from the Plan since 7thOctober 2008. This information was communicated to her at a hearing before an Equality Officer on the issue of the rate of payment under the Plan, where she received no payment due to the alleged discriminatory administration of the Plan. At the conclusion of that equality complaint process the Claimant’s complaint was upheld and she was retrospectively paid benefit under the Plan from 4thMay 2006 until 7thOctober 2008.
At the hearing before the Court the Claimant stated that having discovered that she was suspended from the Plan she was informed that this was due to her non-attendance at medical appointments to review her entitlement to benefits under the Plan. The Claimant stated that one appointment had been cancelled by the doctor concerned and that she was unable to attend the second appointment for stated reasons.
The Claimant’s former employer did not attend the hearing before the Court. On the uncontested evidence before it, the Court accepts that no formal notification was given to the Claimant informing her that she had been suspended from the Plan and accordingly up until 20thMay 2011 she could not have been aware of her status under the Plan, however, at that point she did become aware of the situation but did not refer a claim to a third party until November 2013.
In all the circumstances of this case, the Court recommends that the Claimant’s former employer should pay compensation to the Claimant and accordingly recommends retrospective payments under the Plan to cover the period of her absence from 7thOctober 2008 to 20thMay 2011.
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
14th October, 2014______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.