Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Disability Support Organisation

Representatives

 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 - 00002713

03/06/2024

The worker submits that she is without pay and without work after being placed in a high-risk situation and has suffered physically, emotionally and mentally.

The worker submitted that she had a pre-existing back condition but was deemed suitable to take up employment with the employer on 14/10/2023.  When working with the employer on 03/11/2023 she sustained pain and was moved to another house shortly after on 07/11/2023 with less manual handling involved.  Shortly after arriving at this other building, she was asked if she could go to the hospital to be with a service user who was in hospital.  The worker said she was only told that the service user had low oxygen levels but that the service user required additional levels of care and the hospital said they were too busy to attend to the service user immediately. 

The worker had to assist the service user and suffered pain in her back owing to the strain of having to manually support the service user. The worker has been deemed unfit to return to work albeit in recent times has been deemed fit to take on lighter duties.  The worker expressed her upset and annoyance at the situation she found herself in and that she is not eligible for sick pay as she was with the employer for a short period of time.  She would like to return to work but nothing has been forthcoming that might be suitable for her and outlined her unhappiness that she is not receiving pay, is not able to work and that the employer did not outline to her the level of needs that the service user required when they relocated her causing further damage to her back. 

The employer submitted that the worker had sustained a back injury pre-employment and it would appear from conversations with the worker that she may be limited in the work that she can do with her current injury and they would like to engage further with her regarding her return to work. A service user would not always have someone accompany them in the hospital and it was submitted that the responsibility for the service user would not have been with hospital staff.  It was outlined that the respondent is not a position to overrule the terms of the sick pay scheme which are pro-rata based on service but the employer can assist the worker with some relevant medical bills sustained through their policies and procedures and assist in getting her back to work.

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

The workers submits her upset that she is not paid while out sick, that her injury occurred while attending  to a service user, that she was not trained to attend to the needs of this service user and that the employer was aware that she had been redeployed earlier that day because of a problem with her back.  The employer submits that there is no provision to provide further than the sick pay provides for, that they will assist with medical expenses that she has incurred and that they would like to assist and support her in her return to work.

Having heard all the submissions, I recommend as follows:

Firstly, the employer should ensure that their policies and procedures clearly outline the expectations and responsibilities of workers accompanying service users to hospital.

Secondly, the employer should ensure that appropriate handover is given to workers who attend to service users in the hospital.

Thirdly, the employer should continue to engage in assisting the workers return to work.

Finally, the worker was impacted by what appears to be failures in an appropriate handover in accompanying the service user at the hospital and I award compensation of €750.

I recommend as follows:

Firstly, the employer should ensure that their policies and procedures clearly outline the expectations and responsibilities of workers accompanying service users to hospital.

Secondly, the employer should ensure that appropriate handover is given to workers who attend to service users in the hospital.

Thirdly, the employer should continue to engage in assisting the workers return to work.

Finally, the worker was impacted by what appears to be failures in an appropriate handover in accompanying the service user at the hospital and I award compensation of €750.

Manual handling, policies and procedures, return to work, sick pay