FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : WESTERN BRAND GROUP (REPRESENTED BY BENEN FAHY ASSOCIATES) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms O'Donnell |
1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Recommendation No. R-159491-IR-15.
BACKGROUND:
2. This matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and Recommendation. On the 20 July 2016 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-
- While I fully acknowledge the respondent’s concern regarding strict adherence to the provisions of the reporting requirements of the scheme, I find on the balance of probabilities that the claimant did attempt to comply having met with the company on the 29thMay 2015. I recommend in full and final settlement of this dispute the company pay the claimant sick pay top up for the period the 19thMay to the 10thJune – i.e. one week following the date he attended the clinic on the the [sic] 3rdJune 2016.
The Employer appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 22 August 2016 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15 February 2017.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The employee provided medical certificates for the entire period of absence and had left the certificates with office staff.
2. The sick absence resulted from an incident on site.
EMPLOYER’S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The employee did not comply with the reporting requirements under the Sick Pay Scheme and is not entitled to sick pay.
2. The employer has had difficulty with employees abusing the Sick Pay Scheme and must therefore insist the reporting requirements be strictly adhered to by all employees.
DECISION:
This matter comes before the court as an appeal by Western Brand Group Limited (the Appellant) against the decision of an Adjudication Officer in a complaint made by a worker (the Respondent) that he had been denied access to the sick pay scheme in respect of an absence which commenced in May 2015.
The Adjudication Officer recommended that the Respondent be allowed access to benefit under the scheme in respect of the period from 19thMay to 10thJune 2015.
The Appellant contended that the Respondent had not complied fully with the reporting arrangements set down in the scheme and that as a result he cannot be allowed access to benefit under that scheme. The Appellant contended that the scheme was very clear in its terms which set out that a failure to abide by the reporting arrangements would result in a denial of access to benefit.
The Appellant contended that, in accordance with the terms of the scheme, the failure to supply a correct certificate for the period from 18thMay 2015 disallowed the Respondent from benefit.
The Court has considered in detail the written and oral submissions of the parties. The Court is troubled by the lack of clarity in some of the detail as regards the role of the medical doctor who was responsible for certification of the Respondent.
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.
The Court notes that the fact of the Appellant’s illness is not in dispute.
In all of the circumstances applying in this case, including the lack of clarity as regards the detail of the role of the medical doctor, the Court recommends that the Respondent should be allowed to access benefit under the scheme for the period from 19thMay to 10thJune 2015.
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.