LCR21404

• I understand the company’s position with respect to the need for rigid adherence to reporting requirements and accept their contention that this had been agreed with SIPTU. I accept however that the decision to exclude the claimant from the scheme for the entire 8 week period is excessively harsh and I have concluded that some allowance should have been made for the claimant’s lack of fluency in English. I recommend in full and final settlement of the complaint that the provisions of the sick Pay Scheme apply to the claimant for 5 weeks of the 8 week period.

The Adjudication Officer recommended that the Respondent be allowed access to benefit under the scheme in respect of five weeks of the eight week absence.

The Appellant contended that the Respondent had not complied fully with the reporting arrangements set down in the scheme and that as a result she cannot be allowed access to benefit under that scheme. The Appellant contended that the scheme was very clear in its terms and set out that a failure to abide by the reporting arrangements would result in a denial of access to benefit.

The Respondent asserted that she had made an error in first reporting of her absence and the supply of a certificate covering the period from 5^thto 11^thMay 2015. She asserted that she had supplied the correct certificate for the period from 12^thto 19^thMay 2015 and every week thereafter.

The Appellant contended that, in accordance with the terms of the scheme, the failure to supply a correct certificate for the period 5^thto 11th May disallowed the Respondent from benefit. The Appellant also asserted that it had not received a medical certificate for the period from 12^thto 19^thMay and that this also represented a failure of reporting which had the consequence of disallowance from benefit under the scheme. The Appellant acknowledged that it received certificates for every week thereafter albeit that a certificate signed by the doctor’s secretary / receptionist had not been accepted as valid.

The Court has considered in detail the written and oral submissions of the parties. The Court is troubled by apparent inconsistencies in the material supplied by the medical doctor who was responsible for certification of the Respondent. Those inconsistencies lead to some difficulty in understanding the exact nature of interactions between the Respondent and the medical doctor at key moments throughout the material events.

Notwithstanding this area of concern the Court notes the commendably clear and unambiguous written terms of the Appellant’s sick pay scheme which emphasise the importance of correct reporting and the consequences of a failure to fulfil the specified requirements. It is clear that, for whatever reason, the Respondent failed to meet the reporting requirements of the scheme for three of the eight weeks.

The Court notes however that the fact of the Appellant’s illness is not in dispute given the fact that she met the correct reporting requirements for five weeks of her absence and that the Respondent funded a physiotherapy intervention which formed part of the recuperative process.

In all of the circumstances applying in this case, including the lack of clarity as regards the role of the medical doctor and the lack of information available to the Court as regards the Appellant’s financial support for the recuperative process of the Respondent, the Court recommends that the Respondent should be allowed to access benefit under the scheme for five of the eight weeks of her absence.

The decision of the Adjudication Officer is affirmed and the appeal fails.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Kevin Foley
LS______________________
24 February 2017Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Louise Shally, Court Secretary.