Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Worker

Employer

Representatives

Fórsa

Ibec

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 - 00000360

11/06/2022

The worker was involved in an accident at work in October 2021 and has been on medically certified leave since then.  The worker applied for access to the Injury Grant Scheme but was informed by HR that she did not qualify for the scheme.   The worker’s appeal of this decision by way of the employer’s grievance procedure was unsuccessful.

The dispute referred by the worker to the Workplace Relations Commission is an appeal of the internal grievance process as the worker believes she is entitled to the allowance payable under the Injury Grant Scheme.

The worker had an accident at work on 14 October 2021 whereby she tripped over a lump in the carpet in her office.  Medical assistance was called for and the worker was transferred by ambulance to Accident & Emergency.  The worker has remained unfit for work since that time and her absence is medically certified. 

The worker had exhausted her sick pay entitlements and, due to the nature of the incident, considered it appropriate to apply for access to the Injury Grant Scheme.  The worker was informed by HR on 10 November 2021 that her application was not approved as she did not meet the conditions to qualify for payment of the injury grant allowance.  The worker invoked the grievance procedure on 12 November 2021 in relation to this decision. The worker and her union representative attended a grievance hearing with the employer’s Director of Human Resources on 14 February 2022.   The worker’s appeal was not upheld, and this was communicated to the worker on 25 February 2022.

It is contended on behalf of the worker that she meets the criteria of the scheme.  The employer’s finding that the worker was not injured without his or her own default is contested on the basis that the worker and another staff member had previously raised the lumpy carpet as an issue with their line manager, and the injury occurred through no fault of the worker.  It was also the worker’s understanding that the carpet in the office had been replaced after the incident.

The worker is seeking access to the Injury Grant Scheme.

The worker’s application to access the Injury Grant Scheme was investigated by the employer’s Deputy Director of Human Resources who concluded that the worker did not meet the criteria of the scheme.  This decision was communicated to the worker on 10 November 2021.  The worker invoked the grievance procedure on 12 November 2021 to appeal the decision.

The employer’s Director of Human Resources dealt with the worker’s appeal.  The appeal included a remote hearing with the worker and her union representative on 14 February 2022.  Following this hearing, the Director reviewed photographs taken on the day of the incident and visited the office where the incident occurred. The outcome of the Director’s investigation was to reject the appeal by reason of the conditions for the scheme not having been met by the worker. 

The employer submitted that the relevant line manager disputed the worker having previously raised the carpet as an issue; a perceived hazard or risk must be raised and failure to do so means that any injury sustained could not have been without default on the part of the worker.  

The worker is in receipt of Temporary Rehabilitation Remuneration since 3 November 2021, in accordance with the Public Service Management (Sick Leave) Regulations (SI 124 of 2014). 

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

The Injury Grant Scheme is a long-term absence benefit scheme provided for by the Local Government (Superannuation)(Consolidation) Scheme 1998 (SI 455/1998) and the HSE Employee Superannuation Scheme 2010 (SI 362/2010) whereby an allowance is payable to an employee who is injured: -

(i)               in the actual discharge of his or her duty, and

(ii)              without his or her own default, and

(iii)            by some injury attributable solely to the nature of his or her duty.

In this case, the employer’s deputy Director of Human Resources reviewed the worker’s application for the injury grant allowance and determined, on the information before him, that the worker did not meet (ii) above and therefore declined the worker’s application.  The worker was dissatisfied with this decision and appealed it through the grievance procedure.  The appeal was dealt with by the employer’s Director of Human Resources.  I note that the appeal involved a hearing with the worker and her union representative along with a review of information regarding various matters and a visit to the office where the incident occurred. 

The worker’s representative confirmed to me that the dispute did not concern a procedural irregularity; the dispute concerns the worker’s disagreement with the decisions that she did not meet the criteria to benefit under the scheme and she seeks access to the Injury Grant Scheme. 

The Labour Court outlined its remit under the Industrial Relations Act 1969 in relation to disputes concerning internal investigations and processes in the case of Bord Gais Eireann v A Worker (AD1377): -

“It is not the function of the Court to form a view on the merits of complaints giving rise to those investigations nor can it substitute its views for those of the investigators appointed in either case.  Rather, the role of the Court is to establish if the procedures used by the Company conformed to the generally accepted standard of fairness and objectivity that would normally be used in cases such as these.”

I have considered the submissions of the parties and the procedures adopted by the employer and have no basis for finding any procedural irregularity in how the employer attended to the worker’s application and appeal, or that the outcome of the worker’s grievance was unreasonable or unfair.  I note that whilst the employer declined the worker’s application by reference to it not being satisfied the worker was injured without her own default, entitlement to the injury grant allowance is contingent on three conditions being satisfied, one of which involves medical opinion/advice.  I do not consider it appropriate for me to substitute my views for the views of those who have dealt with and decided the worker’s application for access to the injury grant scheme or that it is within my remit to recommend the outcome desired by the worker. It follows that I am unable to make a recommendation in the worker’s favour in this dispute. 

Dispute – Appeal of grievance procedure – Injury Grant Scheme