ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: ADJ- 00036386
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | Worker | Employer |
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 |
| 06/12/2021 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Elizabeth Spelman
Date of Hearing: 14/06/2023
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.
The Hearing was conducted in person. As this is a trade dispute under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, the Hearing took place in private and the Parties are not named.
The dispute was scheduled for Hearings on 30 March 2023 and 14 June 2023.
Background:
The Worker claimed that he had been unfairly denied a return to work following illness, despite a resolution of his health issues and securing the required medical clearance. The Worker submitted his dispute to the Workplace Relations Commission (the “WRC”) on 6 December 2021. |
Summary of Worker’s Case:
The Worker provided written and oral submissions. The Worker commenced work as an electrician with the Employer in April 1990. He earned a gross salary of €1,700 per fortnight, working 39 hours per week. In August 2020, he was admitted to hospital. The Worker outlined that upon his discharge, the hospital indicated that no follow-up appointments were required and that GP care would be appropriate. The Worker outlined that he was subsequently certified as fit to return to work. The Worker outlined that the Respondent’s Occupational Health team insisted on a conditional return to work and required additional medical information. The Worker outlined that despite providing a medical report, a CT scan and an MRI report, he remained on sick leave. The Worker outlined that he remained on sick leave for a period of approximately two and a half years. The Worker outlined that the issue of his return to work was resolved, however, the issue of compensation remained unresolved. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Employer provided oral submissions. The Employer outlined that while they accepted that the Worker remained on sick leave, this was not their fault. The Employer did not accept that they unreasonably prevented the Worker from returning to work. The Employer outlined that they are bound by their Occupational Health team’s advice. The Employer outlined that they followed that advice and relevant internal processes.
|
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the Parties.
The issue of the Worker’s return to work was resolved between the Parties. Therefore, the issue of compensation remains. Having regard to the submissions made, I find in favour of the Worker. I recommend that the Employer pays to the Worker, the sum of €23,000, by way of compensation in full and final resolution of this matter. For the avoidance of doubt, this does not constitute remuneration or arrears of remuneration. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I recommend that the Employer pays to the Worker, the sum of €23,000, by way of compensation in full and final resolution of this matter. For the avoidance of doubt, this does not constitute remuneration or arrears of remuneration.
Dated: 03-07-2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Elizabeth Spelman
Key Words:
Industrial Relations. |