FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MILNE FOODS LTD (REPRESENTED BY PENINSULA) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms O'Donnell |
1. Loss of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a claim by the Worker for loss of earnings during a period of sick leave absence. The Worker was absent from work following an allergic reaction to cleaning products used in her place of employment. The Claimant sought to change to an alternative shift pattern in order to avoid contact with the cleaning products however the Employer placed her on unpaid sick leave, which resulted in a loss of two weeks' pay for the Claimant. The Union on behalf of its member contends that the issue could have been resolved without the Claimant being placed on unpaid leave. The Union is seeking to recover the loss incurred by the Worker through no fault of her own. The Worker referred the issue to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 18th October, 2016. The Employer was not present and was not represented at the hearing. The Worker agreed to be bound by the Recommendation of the Court.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court was brought under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (the Act) and concerns a claim by a worker seeking payment for her absence due to an allergic reaction to exposure to cleaning products.
In submitting her claim the Claimant has in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Act undertaken to accept the Recommendation of the Court.
The employer did not attend and was not represented at the hearing.
The Claimant was employed as a General Operative in the Company’s Production Department, working on the potato line on a rotating shift cycle.
The Union on behalf of the Claimant told the Court that in August 2015 the Claimant was on sick leave from her employment due to an allergic reaction to exposure to cleaning products. Her Doctor had previously raised the matter of the Claimant’s allergy to cleaning products with her employer in December 2013 and again in May 2014. As a result, she was sent for an independent medical examination which concluded that she was allergic to the cleaning chemicals being used in the factory and recommended her to wear a mask for protection. She has since returned to work and the mask appears to be working. However, she lost two weeks’ wages as a result of being out sick and having to attend the independent medical assessment and which she was required to pay for herself. The Company does not operate a sick pay scheme.
The Union claimed that the Claimant should be reimbursed for her loss of earnings as her absence from work was not of her doing but the result of her employer’s failure to protect her health, safety and wellbeing.
Having considered the Union’s claim, the Court is of the view that had the employer dealt with the issue as recommended by the Claimant’s GP, the issue may have been dealt with without the Claimant having to lose wages. In all the circumstances, the Court recommends that the Company should pay the Claimant the sum of €850.00 in full and final settlement of this claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
2nd November 2016______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Clodagh O'Reilly, Court Secretary.