ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00001844
Complaint(s)/Dispute(s) for Resolution:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00002544-001 | 11/02/2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 21/06/2016
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and or Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:
The Co. offered which me a position which my specialist consultant has said I am not fit for. The Co. job specification for the offered job differed greatly from reality of position. In oral evidence, supported by a large written submission which contained considerable medical evidence, the Union submitted that the type of work being offered to the Complainant was now completely different from what was understood by the Medical Authorities and alternatives needed to be considered. Pragmatically a decision on Ill Health retirement should be considered. |
Summary of Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:
The Complainant has been absent on a plea of illness since February 2013.
His position is currently under appeal of dismissal
His absence is being managed via the Respondent’s Attendance Support Management Process (ASMP)
He was referred to the Respondent’s Chief Medical Officer (CMO) in February /March 2014.
The CMO declared the Complainant fit for work in an alternative location to his original posting.
This was the subject of an Independent Medical Review.
In late 2014 it was agreed following the Independent and the CMO Medical reports that he Complainant was fit to undertake “Desk Based Work”
A number of alternative locations were offered to the Complainant and he returned to work for two week in June 2015. From 3rd July 2015 he has remained on Sick leave.
From the 27th July 2015 sick pay has been withdrawn by the Respondent.
The Respondent submitted that the Complainant is clearly seeking retirement on ill health grounds.
He has failed to satisfy the CMO of the medical requirements for same.
The Respondent has been very patient but the medical advice is that the Complainant is medically fit for the work offered to him. He does not qualify for medical early retirement on ill health grounds. The terms of this scheme are clear and well understood by all.
Should the Compliant have issue with the type or location of work being offered to him he can raise these issues in the context of his internal appeal against his dismissal. This Appeal has been put on hold pending the outcome of the current reference to the WRC.
Decision:
Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and or Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 require that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Issues for Decision:
Is the type of work being offered by the Respondent organisation suitable for the Complainant and the overall background situation pertaining to the case.
Legislation involved and requirements of legislation:
Industrial Relations Act, 1969
Decision:
It is common practice across all Public Service Organisations, the Health Service Executive and Local Authorities that early retirement of grounds of Ill Health is subject to strict medical conditions.
In this case, the clear desire of the Complainant is to retire on these grounds.
However he fails to satisfy the medical requirements and has been offered what are deemed to be medically suitable alternative work opportunities.
An Adjudication Officer has no jurisdiction; once fair play and procedures have been followed as clearly they were in this case, to comment any further on this issue.
At the hearing the Respondent offered , in good faith, to as part of the Dismissal Appeal process to once again examine , due allowance being made for medical evidence, the work location and work content issues impacting on the Complainant.
This is a reasonable offer from the Respondent and should be immediately availed of by the Complainant.
Dated: 2nd August 2016