ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00023351
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Home Help Worker | A Health Service Provider |
Representatives | SIPTU |
|
Complaint:
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-00029886-002 | 25/07/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 12/02/2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.
Background:
The worker submits that did not receive payment during a period of absence. |
Summary of Worker’s Case:
The worker submits that she worked with the employer since 1998 and when she turned 65 on 10 May 2018 she was retained on a fixed term contract from 11 May 2018 ending 10 May 2019 under Circular 006/2018.
The worker was on sick leave between 22 January 2019 and 11 March and applied for Temporary Rehabilitation Remuneration (TRR) but the employer refused to pay same. It was submitted that as the worker was not a member of the pension scheme she was not entitled to TRR. The worker outlined her upset at the manner in which she was treated. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
It was submitted that the worker had no entitlement to TRR as set out in Circular 006/2018. The worker was at the time of her absence a retiree from the respondent’ pension scheme and therefore as no longer a member of the pension scheme, the worker had no entitlement to TRR.
It was further submitted that TRR is paid with management discretion and only if there is a realistic prospect of the worker returning to work. The worker’s absence commenced in October 2018 and continued until the end of the temporary contract and the worker submitted the TRR forms in February and March 2019. It was submitted that there would not have been a realistic chance of the worker returning to work. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The worker submits that she should have been paid TRR during her absence and the employer submits that she had no entitlement to same as she was a retiree and therefore excluded from TRR and furthermore that TRR is at management discretion.
I note that correspondence between the parties do not mention that the worker may not receive TRR as she may not realistically return to work.
I recommend that owing to the unique circumstances of this dispute that the employer should pay the worker €500 for the ambiguity around their refusal of the worker’s claim and the upset caused. |
Decision:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I recommend that owing to the unique circumstances of this dispute that the employer should pay the worker €500 for the ambiguity around their refusal of the worker’s claim and the upset caused. |
Dated: 8th June 2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Key Words:
Industrial relations act |