FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : LETTERKENNY UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Recommendation No. ADJ-00013881 CA-00018297-001.
BACKGROUND:
2. This matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and Recommendation. On 18 January 2019 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-
- “I find the Respondent acted reasonably in processing the issue through mediation and that the claimant’s efforts to re-open the complaint at this point having signed off on a mediated settlement are unreasonable. Accordingly, I do not uphold the complaint”.
The Union on behalf of a worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 14 February 2019 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 4 April 2019.
DECISION:
This is an appeal by the Union on behalf of a worker of an Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation on the Claimant’s claim for payment of HSE Injury Grant for a period of absence from 17thJuly 2017 until 1stNovember 2017. The Adjudication Officer did not uphold his complaint.
The Claimant maintained that he was suffering from work-related stress, which he claimed was related to an incident which occurred in the work-place on 15thJuly 2017. He claimed that he should have received payment under the Injury Grant Scheme rather than under the Sick Pay Scheme.
Management disputed the claim and stated that the alleged incident giving rise to his absence was a routine and unremarkable conversation/exchange between him and his Supervisor, regarding his request for annual leave. This occurred between his Supervisor, who was female and himself, in in the male changing room. Management contended that a complaint of psychological injury is not covered by the Injury Grant Scheme, it provides benefit for physical injury only and in any event, payment is discretionary. Eligibility for admission of physical injuries to the scheme is assessed in line with Article 12 of the HSE Employer Superannuation Scheme 2010.
The Court was informed that in the last 15 years the Claimant has been absent on 2321 working days and was paid under the Injury Grant Scheme, on seven occasions.
Having considered the submissions of both parties the Court is not satisfied that the absence referred to comes within the parameters of eligibility for payment under the Injury Grant Scheme. Furthermore, the Court notes that contrary to the rules of the Scheme, no incident report was completed, and it was not reported to the Health and Safety Authority.
Therefore, the Court rejects the Claimants’ claim and upholds the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation.
The Court so Decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
LS______________________
08 April 2019Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Louise Shally, Court Secretary.