Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A State Employee

A State Employer

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 - 00004287

13/05/2025

The Worker began working for the Employer on the 05/11/2007 and continues to do so.

They have referred the matter to the Commission under S13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

The matter involves a trade dispute where the Worker was not paid for a large period under the Organisation injuries at work scheme.

Section 13 allows a party to a trade dispute to refer the matter for investigation and recommendation. The aim is to offer a non-binding, informal resolution process to help settle disputes. The Worker has referred the dispute to be adjudicated, and the Employer has not objected to the same.

This complaint concerns the non-issuance and delayed processing of an injury certificate following an injury sustained on duty on 23 October 2022. The Worker alleges that:

• In January 2023 an initial recommendation had been made to not to certify the Employer under the scheme
•  In August 2023 a certificate categorizing his sick absence as injury on duty was issued by a Senior Manager, but was not acted upon by HR.
• From July 2023 until July 2024 the file remained inactive with the employer from at which point it was forwarded with a recommendation to issue the certificate.
• In January 2025 the application was then processed 2.5 years after the injury occurred.

Impact on the Worker:

• In October 2024 the delay resulted in the Worker being removed from payroll despite having entered TRR (Temporary Rehabilitation Remuneration) on 26 February 2023.
• The Worker experienced significant financial hardship, stress, and disruption to his recovery.
• Attempts to resolve the matter through internal dispute resolution procedures were unsuccessful.
• Communication from management has been minimal, and the Worker continues to face uncertainty and stress due to unresolved stipulations.

Relief Sought:

The Worker seeks redress for the avoidable delays, lack of communication, and procedural failures that led to financial and personal hardship. He has declined mediation and requests adjudication by the WRC

The Employer position regarding delays set out is in the following:

• In October 2022 the Worker reported sick, initially stating he had stumbled on stairs at his work location.
• A month later, he reported that the injury occurred while performing his duties on the same date.
• Due to the conflicting accounts, management sought medical advice and conducted a review in line with their procedures.

Timeline and Decision Process:

• A Senior Manager (AG) recommended against granting injury on duty benefit due to the delay in reporting the arrest-related injury.
• The Medical Advice was that the injury could reasonably be attributed to both incidents.
• On 11 August 2023, a Senior Manager certified no evidence of wilful default or negligence.
• On 27 January 2025, the person in charge of HR confirmed that injury on duty benefit should apply, with a four-month term from that date.
• The employer declined to hear a grievance submitted by the worker in January 2025, stating that such matters fall outside the scope of the agreed internal grievance procedure.

Employer’s Position:

• The employer acknowledges that the process took longer than ideal but attributes this to the confused reporting and the need for medical advice.
• It asserts that the Organisational Code does not specify a timeline for decisions and that pay adjustments are retrospective.
• The four-month term applied by the HR Director is consistent with the requirement that there be a reasonable probability of return to duty.
• Injury on duty benefit has been paid retrospectively and continues to be paid.
• The employer argues that no financial loss has been incurred and that the worker has received full entitlements under the public service sick pay scheme.

The Employer requests that the WRC issue a recommendation confirming that the dispute has been resolved through the payment of injury on duty benefit and that no further redress is warranted.

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

Responsibility of the Parties

From the matters discussed at the hearing and contained in the submissions the Worker bears some responsibility for the confusion that arose in the manner that they reported both injuries in their entirety.  It was put before me that the Worker had suffered a serious injury and required surgery on his spine and in subsequent time the Employer has accepted his injury as bona fide and made good on the retrospective payment of salaries etc.

The Worker is rightly aggrieved at the length of time it took to resolve the matter, and it would seem the timeframe is inordinate and unnecessary with unexplained delays, and I do not accept it that there is no specific timeline set out. It is simply good management to deal with a matter like this promptly and to not exacerbate the injury to the Worker by delaying their payment.

Redress

The Worker has sought redress for the avoidable delays, lack of communication, and procedural failures that led to financial and personal hardship. The employer argues that no financial loss has been incurred and that the worker has received full entitlements under the public service sick pay scheme and that the dispute has been resolved through the payment of injury on duty benefit and that no further redress is warranted.

Purpose of a S13 Referral

The referral of a complaint under s13 is to resolve employment disputes, such as disagreements over workplace procedures, treatment, or entitlements not covered by specific employment legislation, to provide a recommendation aimed at resolving the dispute and to offer a confidential and informal process in doing so.

The referral is an individual case and not a collective one and the decision for an Adjudicator is to make a recommendation for the parties to accept or reject to resolve the dispute between them.

I can accept the argument that the Worker has some blame in the original error in reporting, but this is minimal where the Employer has the resources and the duty to resolve matters before they escalate and get out of hand, as they have done so here. The Employer has accepted at the hearing that in hindsight they would like to have seen it move quicker to a resolution and their processes are under review

Conclusion

It is not within the gift of the Commission to reverse time and ensure that the matter never happened, nor can an accurate amount of compensation resolve the distress caused. Nonetheless, there is a recommendation required to resolve the matter.

I take into account that the issue was not maliciously caused by the Employer, but clearly their Senior Manager did not fully investigate the withholding of the payments on deciding there was an issue with the reporting, if they had they surely would have come to the conclusion that was later arrived at; that the injury was genuine.

The delay in payment unnecessarily is always a serious matter, and in circumstances where the Worker had a serious injury arising from their duties; the non-payment understandably caused them a great deal of distress on top of their injury.

Redress

I am also conscious that there is no set of amounts of compensation that can reverse the hardship and bad feeling over such a long period of time, but I am cognisant that the financial matters have, thankfully, been rectified. Bearing that in mind and in the interests of drawing a line under the issue for both parties, I recommend that the Employer make a payment to the Worker of €7,500.00 and the Worker accepts the same in full and final settlement of the matter.

Injury Scheme, unnecessary delay.