Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Staff Officer

Health Service

Representatives

Self-Represented

Self-Represented

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 - 00002749

10/06/2024

On 10th June 2024, the Worker referred the present dispute to the Commission. Herein, she alleged that her Employer incorrectly deemed her to be a non-eligible employee is respect of a special recognition payment. In answering the allegations, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant was correctly classified in accordance with the national guidelines and that the payment was not due and owing to her.

Following the Respondent’s positive election to engage with the dispute, the matter proceeded to hearing. Said hearing was convened for, and finalised on 25th October 2024. The hearing was held at the Commissions Sligo offices.

Both parties issued extensive submissions in advance of the hearing. These submissions were expanded upon and contested in the course of the hearing.

No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the dispute were raised at any stage of the proceedings.

By submission, the Complainant stated that during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, she was deemed to be an “essential worker” and was permitted to travel in excess of the then restricted area in order to attend work. As such an employee, the Worker was amongst the first persons to receive the relevant vaccine once same became available. During said working hours, the Complainant attended a health care environment.

On 20th July 2022, the Worker made an application for payment of the “Pandemic Special Recognition Payment”, as she believed that she met the criteria for the same. Some months later, on 13th February 2023, the Worker received a response stating that as she did not meet the eligibility criteria set out in HSE Circular 12/2022, she was not entitled to receive the payment. The Worker queried this position a number of times, stating that, in her view, she did meet the criteria. The Worker enquired as to rationale for the refusal of her application, and any available appeal mechanism in relation to the same. By response, the Respondent continually stated that their decision in this regard was final, that they were not obliged to give reasons for their decision and that no appeal mechanism was available.

By submission, the Worker submitted that the outcome of her application was both procedurally and substantively unfair. She submitted that she met each of the criteria outlined in the circular and should have been awarded to the payment. In this regard she outlined her concern that a relatively recent change in her role had not been considered by the Employer. Finally, the Worker submitted that the failure to give reasons for the refusal and well as the absence of any appeal mechanism was procedurally unfair towards her.

By response, the Employer denied the allegations as raised by the Worker.

In this regard, the Respondent accepted that the Worker made an application for the “Pandemic Special Recognition Payment”. However, they submitted that the same was refused on the basis that the Complainant worked in an office environment, which was deemed not to be an “eligible environment” a required by the relevant guidelines. While they accepted that the Complainant was exempt from the travel restrictions and was prioritised for vaccination, they stated that this applied to the majority of the Employer’s staff and did not, of themselves, create an automatic entitlement to the payment.  

Regarding the process adopted by the Employer, they submitted that was considered by a “Dispute Resolution Committee”. The terms of reference of this committee were agreed in consultation with the relevant trade unions. These terms state, in particular, that decisions will be issued in written form with no right of appeal.

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

Regarding the present dispute, the Worker has submitted that she was entitled to be paid a bonus known as the “Pandemic Special Recognition Payment”. In this regard, she submitted that she met the criteria for inclusion of the cohort of employee’s entitled to this benefit and her exclusion was unreasonable, In addition to the same, the Worker submitted that the process adopted in considering her application was fundamentally unfair.  

In this regard, HR Circular 012/2022 sets out the eligibility rules for inclusion. In particular the circular states that an applicant must “have been identified as working in COVID-19 exposed healthcare environments.” The eligibility criteria contained in the ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ document further stipulates that an applicant must have,

“…worked in an environment which warranted their inclusion in Sequence Group 1 and 2 for the Vaccination programme...”    

From the submission of the parties, it is apparent that the Complainant was deemed ineligible for payment of this bonus on account of the fact that her role was primarily office based. During the relevant period for the purposes of the application, the Worker’s role was described as either a “Staff Officer” or a “Business Manager”. As such, it can be assumed that the Complainant’s normal duties would not involve any interaction with members of the public or individuals receiving healthcare. While the Worker did submit that one of the offices where she worked was co-located with a care facility, the position of the Respondent in this regard in not unreasonable and I see no grounds to interfere with the same. Finally, while the Complainant did receive a vaccine as a matter of priority, she was not included in sequence groups one or two as required by the document referred to above.

Regarding the process adopted by the Respondent in this regard, it is noted that the same is governed by a code of practice agreed following a period of negotiation with the relevant stakeholders. Whie the Worker is correct in that the correspondence from the appeals body did not actually say why her application was refused, I note that the terms of reference simply state that a matter will be considered and that an outcome, which would be deemed to by full and final, will be issued. In this respect I am further aware that this body was charged with considering a significant amount of referrals and may not have had the resources to provide detailed reasons for their refusal in each situation. However, having considered the factual matrix presented by the parties, it is apparent that it would not be a particularly onerous or time-consuming task for the Respondent to simply list the ground on which the application failed. It is further apparent that the Employer’s failure in this regard caused the Worker an avoidable portion of disquiet and concern.

Finally, the Worker submitted that she was aware of other workers in similar roles receiving the benefit. While this might understandably give rise to a perception of unfairness on the Worker’s part, it can be assumed that these applications were considered on their own merits and cannot have any bearing on the present dispute.

Having regard to the foregoing, I partially recommend in favour of the Worker. While the decision to refuse the application for the payment was itself reasonable, the Employer’s failure to provide any reasoning as to why the application failed was not.  

Covid-19, Payment, Criteria