Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Catering Worker

An Airline

Representatives

PeterGlynnSIPTU

 Company Legal Counsel

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-00009252-001

24/01/2017

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

CA-00009252-002

24/01/2017

The issues in contention concern firstly a Holiday Roster over the Christmas period and secondly an issue over Sick Pay and the Company Medical /Occupational Health procedures.

1:1        Complaint CA-00009252-001 (Holiday Roster)

As set out in Adj 6835 for a colleague this was a case concerning how Christmas and New Year was rostered. The Complainant felt that he had been treated unfairly.

1:2        Complaint CA-00009252-002 (Sick Pay /Company Doctor/ Occupational Health) 

The Complainant suffered a Car accident in June 2016. He was examined by an Occupational Health doctor and deemed fit to return to work on the 20^th July 2016. However, this conflicted with the advice of the Complainant’s own GP and the Complainant did not return to work.  The Union and Management discussed the situation and it was agreed that a further Occupational Health assessment would take place.      At around this time the Complainant’s full sick pay was reduced in keeping with the Respondents’ unilateral interpretation of the Sick Pay Agreements.

Eventually a further Occupational Health review took place on the 6^th September 2016 which declared the Complainant unfit for work. Additional medical evidence had been presented in late August. The Complainant was returned to full Sick pay.

The Complainant is seeking restoration for Sick pay lost during August 2016.

Oral and Written submissions were made.

2:1        Complaint CA-00009252-001 (Holiday Roster)

Agreed to be as in keeping with Adj 6835 – already decided.

2:2        Complaint CA-00009252-002 (Sick Pay /Company Doctor/ Occupational Health) 

The Respondent acted at all times in keeping with established Sick pay policy. The Complainant was certified as Fit by the Occupational Health Doctor - Med Mark on the 20^th July 2016 and was expected to be back at work by the 27^th July. As he did not attend work his sick pay was stopped. Union/ Management contacts followed. It was agreed that a new Medical referral was appropriate.

He was restored to the Sick pay scheme when, on foot of new medical evidence, he was seen again by Med Mark on the 6^th September and was deemed unfit.

The Respondent at all times followed correct procedures and has nothing to answer for.

In the Oral hearing it was agreed that the period in question was a transition period when the old medical referral facilities were being phased out and the new Med Mark facility was being introduced. Some of the key personnel involved in the Union/Management contacts have since retired.

3:1        Complaint CA-00009252-001 (Holiday Roster)

Already disposed of by Adj 6835. Not appropriate -a “Body of Worker’s dispute

3:2       Complaint CA-00009252-002 (Sick Pay /Company Doctor/ Occupational Health) 

At the Oral Hearing it was clear from the written evidence that the Respondent had followed correct written procedures. However, it was also clear that the question of Company Occupational Health referrals /the Introduction of Med Mark was at that time in a transition period.  A new system was being introduced to a situation where, over many years, a degree of laissez faire /HR Department and Union tick tacking had been the norm.  The Complainant was a “Legacy” employee dating back to 1997 and had a view that the 1972 Agreement still applied to his case.

 The Union believed that their telephone contacts with a Senior HR Manger (now retired) had “sorted” the issue and sick pay would not be stopped.

My overall view, based on the Oral and Written evidence presented, was that a high degree of what could be called Transitional Ambiguity arose between the parties in this case. Old systems, possibly open to very informal high-level contacts on Sick pay entitlements, were being phased out and being replaced with an outsourced more systematic system.

The Complainant was deemed unfit by the Second Occupational Health examination in early September prompting the question as to his medical condition during August when his GP thought he was unfit.

On balance and on a strictly Industrial Relations basis I feel that the sick pay short fall for August should be restored by the Respondent employer.

 I base this Recommendation on the obvious ambiguity /learning curve regarding the introduction of the new Med Mark system and the lack of appreciation by all sides here that old informal tick tack contacts, which seemed to have characterised contacts in early August, were no longer operable in this context.

The cost should be seen as a legacy issue involved in the introduction of the new Occupational Health system.

This Recommendation is unique and personal to the Complainant only and has no applicability to any other cases or Complainants.

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Summary Recommendation /please refer to Section Three above for reasoning.

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

CA-00009252-001

Decision as per Adj 6835. Case is not appropriate being a “Body of Workers” dispute

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

CA-00009252-002

Case is well founded on a unique strictly Industrial Relations basis.

Sick pay losses to be restored to the Complainant for the period concerned in August 2016.