Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Nurse

A Hospital

Representatives

INMO

 IBEC

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00025235-001

23/01/2019

In May 2018 the complainant sustained an injury at work in the course of assisting a service user who had fallen.

Her union wrote to the respondent seeking application of an ‘Injury at Work’ scheme to the complainant, and also payment of her medical bills.

The complainant’s position was compounded by the fact that her entitlement to paid sick leave had been exhausted, resulting in obvious financial stresses.

However, the employer responded that the ‘Injury at Work’ scheme does not apply in its employment.

In due course the complainant was forced to retire from employment.

The respondent does not apply the ‘Injury at Work’ scheme to any employee and this is a matter of national discussions between employer and union representatives at the moment.

Further the respondent submits that as this is a claim for rates of pay for ‘a body of workers’ it is not within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Relations Acts.

A number of authorities were relied on to support the contention that an Adjudicator may not exercise jurisdiction in such matters.

I accept the submission of the respondent regarding the jurisdiction of the Adjudication service in relation to matters of pay for a group of workers; this is well established.

The issue of extending the general applicability of the scheme is with the representative parties in the collective bargaining arena and properly so.

What is equally well established is the right of parties to submit complaints under the Industrial Relations Acts in pursuit of equitable remedies for matters that have proved difficult to resolve at the level of the workplace.

Since the appointment of the first Rights Commissioner, then the later development of that service and now the WRC between eight to ten per cent of all complaints received by the Commission are heard under this legislation.

Given that attendance at such hearings is essentially voluntary on the part of a respondent this is eloquent testimony to the value of having such an outlet for the resolution of disputes. It is likely on the basis of anecdotal evidence that a great many are settled, or that some other consensual outcome is achieved.

Therefore, it is a valuable resource for both sides in the industrial relations process.

This complaint falls ‘four square’ within that tradition. While a narrow view of the complaint relates to the failure to apply the scheme to the complainant, her union has also more broadly sought redress for ‘considerable financial loss’ attributable to her injury.

The respondent, it must be acknowledged indicated a degree of sympathy for the complainant’s plight.

In making my recommendation I make it explicitly clear that the issue regarding the application of the ‘Injury at Work’ scheme is a matter for the parties to the national negotiations and I do not uphold that aspect of the complaint, nor make any comment on it.

This recommendation is on a purely personal basis for the complainant, within the historical jurisdiction I outlined above and based on the unfortunate combination of factors which resulted from her injury and  her subsequent financial costs.

Taking account of her medical costs and some element of recompense for other losses I make my recommendation below.

I partially uphold complaint CA-00025235-001 but make it explicitly clear that the issue regarding the application of the ‘Injury at Work’ scheme is a matter for the parties to the national negotiations and I do not uphold that aspect of the complaint.

However, taking account of the complainant’s medical costs and some element of recompense for other losses I recommend payment to the complainant €5,000.00