Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A County Council

Representatives

Lynn Coffey FORSA

 Amanda Kane, LGMA

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00000255

09/05/2022

The dispute was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 9 May 2022 from the Worker in relation to the calculation of her service.

There were detailed submissions and medical reports referred to during the course of the hearing which have been considered.

The Worker was employed by the Employer from 5 August 2008 until her date of retirement on ill health grounds on 25 September 2020.

In response to the Employer objection, it was submitted that no objection was received by the WRC from the Employer with the time limited of 21 days provided for in Section 36(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990.

It was the Workers submission that there are two different periods of leave which were incorrectly categories by the Employer as ordinary sick leave. This has had a direct impact on the Worker’s entitlements on her salary scale prior to her retirement on ill health grounds compared to the situation where her leave was correctly accrued it would have added years to her Long Service Increments (“LSI”)

It was submitted that the Worker was unfairly denied a return to work by the Employer.

The Employer raised an objection to the jurisdiction of the WRC to hear this dispute

There were detailed submissions and medical reports referred to during the course of the hearing.

It was the Employer’s response that the Worker’s LSI is based on her reckonable service and at all times was guided by the Reports of the Occupational Health Physician.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

Firstly, in terms of jurisdiction I agree with the submission of the Worker and conclude I do have jurisdiction under the Industrial Relations legislation to make a recommendation in this dispute. 

During the course of the hearing on the second day a medical report from the Employer’s Occupational Health Physician was referred to and produced. This was the first time that the Worker had an opportunity to review this report which formed the basis for part of the calculation of the Worker’s reckonable service. She was not given a fair opportunity to consider the report at the time and challenge it , if appropriate, with her own medical report. Furthermore, this is despite the long history of correspondence between the Worker and her Union and the Employer.

IR – Long Service

Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A County Council

Representatives

Lynn Coffey FORSA

 Amanda Kane, LGMA

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00000255

09/05/2022

The dispute was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 9 May 2022 from the Worker in relation to the calculation of her service.

There were detailed submissions and medical reports referred to during the course of the hearing which have been considered.

The Worker was employed by the Employer from 5 August 2008 until her date of retirement on ill health grounds on 25 September 2020.

In response to the Employer objection, it was submitted that no objection was received by the WRC from the Employer with the time limited of 21 days provided for in Section 36(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990.

It was the Workers submission that there are two different periods of leave which were incorrectly categories by the Employer as ordinary sick leave. This has had a direct impact on the Worker’s entitlements on her salary scale prior to her retirement on ill health grounds compared to the situation where her leave was correctly accrued it would have added years to her Long Service Increments (“LSI”)

It was submitted that the Worker was unfairly denied a return to work by the Employer.

The Employer raised an objection to the jurisdiction of the WRC to hear this dispute

There were detailed submissions and medical reports referred to during the course of the hearing.

It was the Employer’s response that the Worker’s LSI is based on her reckonable service and at all times was guided by the Reports of the Occupational Health Physician.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

Firstly, in terms of jurisdiction I agree with the submission of the Worker and conclude I do have jurisdiction under the Industrial Relations legislation to make a recommendation in this dispute.  

During the course of the hearing on the second day a medical report from the Employer’s Occupational Health Physician was referred to and produced. This was the first time that the Worker had an opportunity to review this report which formed the basis for part of the calculation of the Worker’s reckonable service. She was not given a fair opportunity to consider the report at the time and challenge it , if appropriate, with her own medical report. Furthermore, this is despite the long history of correspondence between the Worker and her Union and the Employer.

IR – Long Service