FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DUBLIN BUS - AND - A WORKER NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer's Recommendation R-156140-IR-15/RG
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns the Worker's appeal ofAdjudication Officer's Recommendation R-156140-IR-15/RG. The dispute relates specifically to the Worker's claim that he was unfairly denied access to the Company's occupational injury benefit scheme during a period of absence from the workplace following a road traffic accident. It is the Worker's claim that he has suffered a significant financial loss as a result of the Company's refusal to afford him access to occupational injury benefit. The Employer rejects the Worker's claim, arguing that the Worker was appropriately remunerated in accordance with its Welfare Scheme for Regular Wages Staff for the duration of his absence from work. The matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and recommendation. On the 17th November, 2015 the Adjudication Officer issued her recommendation as follows:
"I cannot decide in the favour of the Claimant to direct the Employer to place him on Occupational Company Scheme with effect from 21st December 2014, as there is no medical evidence presented to support the Claimant's position that his absence is due to an injury as a result of the road traffic accident".
On the 18th December, 2015 the Worker appealed the Recommendation of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 27th January, 2016.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker sought access to occupational injury benefit during a period of absence following a road traffic accident which occurred during his normal hours of work.
2. The Worker suffered a loss of earnings as a result of the Company's alleged misapplication of its own occupational injury benefit scheme which prevented him from benefitting from the scheme.
3. The Worker is seeking the proper application of the Company's Welfare Scheme and reimbursement of any monies owing to him.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer contends that the Worker did not meet the criteria required for access to occupational injury benefit and therefore he was not granted access to the scheme.
2. The Employer maintains that the Worker was paid fully in line with his sick leave entitlements for the duration of his absence period.
RECOMMENDATION:
This is an appeal by the Union on behalf of an employee against an Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation which found against his claim for payment of occupational injury benefit under the Welfare Scheme for Regular Wages Staff on the basis that there was no medical evidence presented to support the employee’s position that his absence was due to an injury as a result of the road traffic accident.
The Appellant claimed that he was entitled to benefit under the Company’s occupational injury benefit scheme, as distinct from its sick pay benefit scheme, as his absence from 21stDecember 2014 to 17thAugust 2015 arose as a result of a road traffic accident which occurred in the course of his employment.
The Company disputed the claim on the basis that following an assessment by the Chief Medical Officer, while the Appellant was deemed unfit for work, the Chief Medical Officer found that there was no evidence of any injury to the Appellant following the incident and that his illness was related to a possible medical condition which potentially may have contributed to the road traffic accident on 21stDecember 2014.
The Court was provided with a medical report dated 20thJanuary 2016 from the Company’s GP which gave a contradictory account of the reason for his absence but confirmed the opinion of the Chief Medical Officer that his illness was related to a possible medical condition which potentially may have contributed to the road traffic accident on 21stDecember 2014.
The Court notes that the Appellant was paid his normal wage during the period from the date of the accident until the medical assessment by the Chief Medical Officer and henceforth he was paid in accordance with the Company’s sick pay scheme for the period his absence.
In all the circumstances of this case, the Court concurs with the findings of the Adjudication Officer and rejects the Appellant’s appeal.
The Court so Decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
2nd February 2016______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.