FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MID-WESTERN SPINA BIFIDA AND HYDROCEPHALUS ASSOCIATION (REPRESENTED BY ADARE HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT) - AND - MILENA MADEJA (REPRESENTED BY HELIX HR) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Appeal of a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-151533-Ir-14
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the Worker's claim that she should be entitled to maternity leave pay as she claims that her salary is linked to the HSE scale. This dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 18th October, 2011 the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-
- "I am not in a position to issue a recommendation favourable to the claimant as petitioned."
On the 20th July, 2015 the Employee 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 21st October, 2015.
3. 1. The funding for the worker's position is provided for by the HSE therefore the HSE terms and conditions of employment should apply.
2. The Employer, as a caring organisation should ensure that employees are not disadvantaged during maternity leave through suffering a decrease in earnings.
3.The Employer is financially strong and has the reserves to pay maternity benefit to the worker.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The Worker has no contractual entitlement to maternity pay.
2.The Employersays that the question of maternity pay never arose when an in-depth review of the worker's contract took place.
3.The Employer is not financially strong and is dealing with reduced HSE funding and a reduction in charitable donations.
DECISION:
This is an appeal by the Union on behalf of an employee against a Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation which found against her claim for paid maternity leave. The Union submitted that as the Claimant’s position within the Association is linked for pay purposes with HSE salary scales she should be paid maternity leave on the same basis as the scheme which applies to staff employed by the HSE.
Management explained that the Association is a charity providing support services in the Mid-West region and is primarily funded by charitable donations with HSE providing part of its funding. It rejected the claim and stated that maternity pay does not come within the remit of the Claimant’s contract of employment with the Association. The Association outlined for the Court its difficult financial circumstances due to reductions in HSE funding coupled with reducing charitable donations.
The Court notes that while the Claimant’s contract of employment states that her annual salary is linked to the HSE scale, it does not extend such a benefit to other conditions of employment and indeed states under “Maternity Benefit” Policy“no payment is made in respect of absence by an Employee during maternity leave….”
Having considered the submission made by both parties the Court accepts Management’s contention that the Claimant has no contractual entitlement to be paid during maternity leave, and does not concede the claim for the introduction of a paid maternity leave scheme. Therefore, the Court does not find in favour of the Union’s case.
Accordingly, the Court upholds the Right’s Commissioner Recommendation and rejects the appeal.
The Court so Decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
3rd November, 2015______________________
CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.