Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00001456
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Worker | A Hospital |
Representatives | SIPTU | Employee Relations Department |
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 | IR - SC - 00001456 | 16/06/2023 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Seamus Clinton
Date of Hearing: 08/01/2024
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 and to present any information relevant to the dispute. The hearing was held in the Hearing Rooms, Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), in Carlow. Detailed submissions were made in advance by both parties.
Background:
The worker was ready to return from long term sick leave on 4th March 2021. He attended the Occupational Health Department who advised that as he was in a very high vulnerable group and he could only work remotely if it could be facilitated. No alternative role could be facilitated despite contact between the worker and his employer. As the worker could not return to employment until 22nd March 2022, he suffered a loss as he was not paid premiums. He is seeking the payment of these premiums. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The worker’s representative outlined that as he was prevented from returning to work by the Occupational Health Department and he should not suffer a loss of earnings. Although the worker wanted to return to work, he was dependent on his employer to find alternative and suitable employment so that he could maintain his earnings. Although some effort was made to find an alternative role, the worker was not satisfied that a concerted effort had been made to facilitate him. A complaint was made through the grievance procedure and the workers case was not upheld. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The employer referred to their submission and the two relevant circulars of November 2020 and March 2021 to demonstrate that they have afforded the worker his entitlements. The dispute was considered under the grievance procedure and the outcome was that the circulars were adhered to. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. I have also examined the circulars and the Occupational Health advice. The Occupational Health advice of January 2021, March 2021 and February 2022 are consistent. The reports recommended that he should cocoon (January 2021) and then await NPHET guidelines (March 2021) and then agreed to his return in February 2022. Although the worker maintained his fitness over the period, the medical advice was also tracking the dangers of Covid and his potential exposure over this period. Even though he was anxious to return to work earlier, there was no evidence presented which suggested that the employer was tardy or negligent in trying to facilitate his safe return and not be exposed to Covid. If alternative remote work was agreed, it is unlikely that this work would have attracted premium payments as the normal remote working arrangements usually involve standard hours. Given the particular circumstances of the worker, and in accordance with the relevant circulars, there is no provision for premium payments to be made. My jurisdiction is to make recommendations on individual worker disputes so to go outside of the agreed circulars would inevitably involve other workers. Accordingly, I do not find merit in the worker’s dispute. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
For the reasons outlined, I do not find merit in the worker’s dispute.
Dated: 19th January 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Seamus Clinton
Key Words:
Premium payments |