LCR22772

1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No(s) ADJ-00037825, CA-00049258-001

BACKGROUND:

2. The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 26 January 2023 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 26 May 2023.

• 
  UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
  • 
    1. The Worker should receive his complete ill health gratuity payment, since he is now officially on his ill health pension. This is unconnected to separate proceedings at the High Court and the Employer is using the ill health gratuity payment owed to him as leverage with respect to other active claims.
    2. There was a delay by the Employer in dealing with a grievance raised by the Worker, who seeks compensation for this delay.
    3. There was an incorrect application of sick leave terms by HR. He was deemed to have commenced sick leave three months before he actually commenced that leave.
  
  
  COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
  • 1. The ill health gratuity payment is separate from accrued pension benefits under the Pension Scheme. The ill health gratuity payment is an ex-gratia severance payment paid in full and final settlement of all matters relating to the Worker's employment. Payment of such is subject to certain agreed and standard terms.
    2. The Employer recognises that there were some delays in the handling of the worker's grievance. However, an independent senior manager was appointed to consider this grievance and a detailed investigation process ensued.
    3. The Employer is satisfied that the worker was paid his full entitlement to Company sick pay, in line with the agreements in force at the time of his sick leave, and all issues, when raised, were addressed directly with him by the Company.

There are three extant elements to the claim before the Court.

The Worker is seeking that the Court direct the Employer to withdraw its requirement that he sign a legal waiver, as a condition prior to them making a payment. No evidence was put to the Court to rebut the argument of the Employer that the payment concerned is discretionary. Accordingly, the Court’s approach has to reflect a concern at any possible inappropriate interference in proceedings regarding a claim before a higher court.

The Court cannot recommend concession of this element of the claim.

The Worker seeks compensation for delays in handling his grievance. While the Employer accepts that there was some delay, the Court does not regard the delay as inordinate in nature.

The Court does not recommend concession of this element of the claim.

There is some considerable confusion regarding the date on which the Worker commenced sick leave. It ought to be possible for an Employer to establish this information, as a matter of fact. In the absence of such facts being established definitively by the Employer, the Court believes that, in the circumstances of the instant case, the Worker is entitled to the benefit of doubt. While the Worker argues that his sick leave commenced three months later than that argued by the Employer, it is accepted that he was unavailable for work for three weeks in that contested period. The Court also recognises that the Employer, as they perceived it, willingly paid the Worker for a month longer than necessary, as a gesture of goodwill. Taking all factors into consideration, the Court recommends in respect of this element of the claim that the Employer should pay two months’ salary to the Worker. As the contested months arose prior to the pandemic, in 2019, this payment should be at the full rate of the appropriate salary payable to the Worker at that time.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Tom Geraghty
NCL	______________________
13 June 2023	Deputy Chairman