ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00006366

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties		A Local Authority

Complaint(s):

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-00008752-001	13/12/2016

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 21/02/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael Hayes

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 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).

Background:

The complainant commenced employment with the respondent on the 7^th of August 2007. The dispute concerns the refusal of the respondent to supply orthotic inserts (which the complainant is obliged to wear for medical reasons) for the complainant’s safety boots. The complaint was received on the 13^th of December 2016. The parties made oral and written submission to the hearing.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

It is submitted that the complainant is required to wear safety boots (PPE) and that the respondent pays for the same. The respondent has accepted the advice of the complainant’s orthopaedic specialist (it did not seek independent opinion) to the effect that it would be ill advised to switch inserts between footwear and which would jeopardise his safety and health at work. The respondent has asserted that the wearing of orthotic inserts in PPE is a personal matter. The respondent has previously provided refund to a colleague of the complainant in 1994.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The respondent submits that walking is an integral part of the complainant’s role and that it has responded favourably on each and every occasion on which he raised concerns about his ankle and his ability to carry out his duties. His request for financial assistance to purchase orthotic inserts was denied on the basis that the OHS had indicated that whereas he should resume using orthotics both inside and outside of work it was not his intention to indicate that the respondent should provide the same. The matter has been exhausted through the grievance procedure and the respondent feels that it has treated the complainant fairly at all stages. it is accepted that another employee was supported in this regard in 2014 but that this was an informal interdepartmental matter which was not formally recorded. The respondent is concerned that an unacceptable precedent would be created in the event of a favourable recommendation in behalf of the complainant.

Decision/Recommendation:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires 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.

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

I am satisfied that the mandatory requirement that the complainant wears PPE footwear places an ones on the respondent to supply the orthotics in the circumstances described and I so recommend.

Dated: 23/08/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael Hayes