ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference:
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Social Worker | A County Council |
Representatives | Keith Irvine of the LGMA |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
CA-00026037-001 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing:
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Background:
The issues in contention concern the interrelationship between Annual Leave & Sick Leave and the Council’s policy on the issue. |
1: Summary of Complainant’s Case: Based on a written Submission and Oral Evidence
The Complainant was on various periods of Sick absence during the years 2014 to 2016. This Sick leave comprised periods of Paid and Unpaid Sick leave including a period on “Temporary rehabilitative remuneration” -TRR. Following changes made to Annual leave/Sick pay arrangements introduced in the Work Palce Relations Act, 2105 the Council made arrangements to pay Holidays at the Statutory level only (20 days per annum) rather than the Complainant’s Normal Agreed Level of 32 days) during periods of Unpaid Sick Absence. This resulted in the Complainant facing a shortfall in his holidays as the Council reduced his ordinary Annual Leave entitlement in 2017 to balance for leave paid at his normal (32days) level during the earlier Sick leave period. This “Adjustment” was both unfair and unagreed with his Union FORSA. It was a unilateral action that should be reversed. The difficult personal situation of the Complainant following long periods of Sick leave had not been viewed sensitively. The suggestion that the Council were acting on foot of National guidelines from the Local Government Management body is not acceptable as no agreed policy on this issue has ever been agreed at Central level. It was a unilateral action that should be reversed. |
2: Summary of Respondent’s Case: Based on a written Submission and Oral Evidence
The Respondent made two points 1. This was a Holidays claim and was proper to the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 and not the IR Act,1969 as was being presented. 2. The claim is a significant “Body of Workers” claim as the Complainant is but one of several Local Government employees in a similar situation. A Recommendation on this case would have significant repercussive effects both at the Respondent Council but nationally in all other Local Government employments. Notwithstanding these two points the Respondent Council had acted properly and perfectly legally in keeping with Section 86(1) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015. The claim has no merits and should be dismissed.
|
3: Findings and Conclusions:
This was a multi-faceted case. Having heard the Oral evidence and considered the Written submissions I came to the following opinions. On the fundamental level the Respondent’s arguments were correct - the case is clearly a Body of Workers claim and must be deemed Not Well Founded. The Complaint, on this ground alone, must be set aside. This leaves aside the quite relevant secondary question as to whether or not it should have been proper to the Organisation of Working Time ,1997 as an Annual Leave complaint. However, this case is Under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and a degree of discretion is allowed to the Adjudicator. In this light I comment as follows. The Union confirmed that the issue of the levels of Annual Leave that are proper during periods of “Temporary rehabilitative remuneration” -TRR - was a matter for Central Negotiations. If this issue was not already on the Central Agenda, they would quickly have it tabled. In this context I would observe that, in the future, when an employee is coming back to work after a period of “Temporary rehabilitative remuneration” -TRR - the question of adjustments to his/her Annual leave, if any arise, be handled with great sensitivity. Coming back to work after a period of TRR is a very welcome development for all concerned. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the very serious illnesses that are often involved, it is not a frequent occurrence. It needs to be facilitated in every way possible. I am sure this will be reflected in any central level discussions. None the less and in final summary this complaint as presented under the Industrial Relations Act,1969 is not Well Founded and has to be set aside as a “Body of Workers” claim outside the remit of an Adjudication Officer. |
4: Recommendation
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Summary Recommendation. Please refer to Section Three above for detailed reasoning. |
CA-00026037-001 | Complaint is not Well Founded | |
| ||
Dated: 9th October 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: