ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: Adj-00036444
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | Transport worker | Transport Company |
Representatives | Barnaba Dorda SIPTU | Michael McGrath |
Dispute:
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-00047580 | 10/12/2021 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
Date of Hearing: 07/11/2022
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended)following 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 information relevant to the dispute.
Background:
The worker alleged that he was involved in a traffic accident while at work and that the resulting claim for sickness benefit should have been awarded under an Occupational Injury Benefit scheme and that he was denied unreasonably by the Company. The Company stated that the circumstances of the alleged incident did not warrant such payment. In any event the Company has the right to exercise its discretion on the entitlement. The Employer argued that the claim is moot as no loss has arisen in this case. At the first day of hearing, it became clear that the worker had not quantified his loss and he was an afforded an opportunity to do so and to relist the matter for hearing. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The worker alleged that he was involved in a traffic accident while at work and that the resulting claim for sickness benefit should have been awarded under an Occupational Injury Benefit scheme and that he was denied unreasonably by the Company |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Company stated that the circumstances of the alleged incident did not warrant such payment. In any event the Company has the right to exercise its discretion on the entitlement. In any case the claim is moot as no loss has arisen in this case and the loss has not been properly quantified. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. I am satisfied that the worker was properly notified of the hearing date, time and venue and failed to attend at the second day of the hearing. The dispute was relisted for hearing for a second time. The worker failed to attend. The worker’s representative was in attendance. Under these circumstances the investigation of the dispute must find against the worker. He was afforded an opportunity to be heard on a second day and failed to attend. I conclude that the worker’s complaint should not be acceded to by the Employer. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
The dispute was relisted for hearing for a second time. The worker failed to attend. The worker’s representative was in attendance. Under these circumstances the investigation of the dispute must find against the worker. He was afforded an opportunity to be heard and failed to attend. I conclude and recommend that the worker’s complaint should not be acceded to by the Employer.
Dated: November 22nd 2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
Key Words:
Sick Pay Benefit. |