Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Intermediate Care Operative

Health Service Provider

Representatives

Yvonne O' Callaghan SIPTU Trade Union

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-00035972-001

01/05/2020

The worker applied for the employer’s injury at work grant and his application was refused.

The worker has been engaged in the role since 2013 and on 15 October 2019 suffered an injury at work when moving a stretcher.  He made an application for the employer’s injury at work grant which was refused by Mr A on 18 February 2020.  The worker submits that it was not clear why it was refused and disputes any suggestions that that the injury was the fault of the worker.

The worker appealed this decision on 24 February 2020 and was advised that his appeal was not successful.  The worker submitted that the employer failed to show an open mind during the various stages of the grievance procedure and failed to fairly examine and process the worker’s grievance.

It was further set out that the employer placed too much emphasis on the worker’s use of the words “excessive force” in his description of the incident that occurred and this was unfair.  The worker also outlined that consideration was not given to the reasons why the worker was unable to report the incident on the day that it occurred and that the employer ignored the worker’s attempts to report the incident on the day it occurred.

The worker submits that the refusal of the grant has had a negative impact on his physical and mental health and that furthermore there are outstanding issues regarding his return to work that have not been resolved.

The worker alleges that he suffered an injury at work but did not report the incident until 16 October 2019 when he was referred to Occupational Health.  The worker remained out sick on the employer’s sick pay scheme.

When the worker reported the incident a review of the equipment was undertaken which found that it was in perfect working order. The worker set out in the incident report form “I was unable to use the stretcher without using excessive force”.

The worker was advised on 18th February 2020 that the criteria for injury grant had not been met.  This letter set out that an assessment of an injury at work

“must satisfy the following criteria i.e. was an employee injured

(a)    In the actual discharge of his/her duty

(b)    Without his/her own default

(c)     By some injury attributable solely to the nature of his/her duty.

As the worker used “excessive force” and because the alleged immediate symptoms were not reported on the day of the incident, the employer found as did subsequent appeals, that the worker did not meet the criteria for approval.  The worker was also reminded of his responsibility for preventing work related injuries and that no defects were found in the equipment.

The employer advised that the worker had utilised the grievance procedure but the decision was not overturned.  It was further submitted that the employer would be happy to meet with the worker to discuss

other outstanding issues which the worker raised at the hearing regarding his return to work.

The details of the Injury Grant Scheme (IGS) is set out in the employer’s Long Term Absence Benefit Schemes Guideline. The definition of the IGS is :

An allowance that is paid to employees injured in the discharge of their duties without their own default and by some injury attributable solely to the nature of their duties.  It is provided for by Articles 49 and 109 of the Local Government Superannuation Consolidation Scheme 1998 and Section 12.1 of Health Service Executive Employee Superannuation Scheme 2010 (SI 362 of 2010) . 

The worker submitted that he suffered an injury at work on 19th October 2019 but denies that this injury occurred through his own fault and submits that his statement “I was unable to use the stretcher without using excessive force” meant he had to use more force than one would normally have to.  The worker explained that delays in reporting the incident was through no fault of his own and that he was unhappy with the management of his grievance and was unhappy with his attempts to return to work.

The employer submits that a review was undertaken of the worker’s application for the injury grant but it was refused as it did not satisfy the criteria and there is no automatic entitlement to the injury grant scheme.

Having reviewed all the submissions I note that the injury grant scheme can be paid where the employer is satisfied that the worker discharged their duties without their own default.  I note that the equipment was examined and no fault was found and that the worker’s own statement submits that he was “unable to use the stretcher without using excessive force.  The employer’s conclusion on the appeal by letter dated 24th April 2020 was that “I cannot say that you have fully met the requirements of the relevant scheme”.  In all the circumstances I find it was not unreasonable for the employer to draw this conclusion based on the worker’s submission regarding his use of “excessiveforce”. 

I do not find, therefore, merit in the worker’s dispute and I do not uphold the dispute.

On the day of the hearing the worker outlined his unhappiness with how his return to work was managed.  I note that this has not been raised through the grievance procedure thus far. The Workplace Relations Commission should not be the first port of call when a person has disputes under the Industrial Relations Act.   I note the Labour Court case INT1014 outlined ” The Court is not prepared to insert itself into the procedural process in a situation where the dispute resolution procedures have been bypassed.” 

I cannot find merit in this aspect of the worker’s dispute and I do not uphold the dispute as I am of the view that the worker should pursue his dispute through the agreed internal dispute resolution procedures and I note the employer’s willingness at the hearing to do so.

I do not find merit in the worker’s dispute and I do not uphold the dispute.

Industrial relations, injury grant