Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Staff Nurse

Health Service Provider

Representatives

Worker’s husband

Employer HR personnel

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 - 00002279

28/02/2024

The worker has been employed as a staff nurse in one of the employer’s hospitals since 02/04/2017.

Her dispute centres on how the employer responded to her many requests for payment of Special Leave With Pay for the period 25/9/2021  to 28/2/24, as  result of having contracted work-related SARS-CoV-2 in March 2020, which, in turn, progressed to a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2/ Long-COVID illness /Post-COVID Syndrome in March 2021. Her requests were based on the complainant’s interpretation of the entitlements available to her under the employers’ sick leave regulations.

Her gross fortnightly pay is €1990.00. She works an average of 19.5 hours a week.

She lodged her complaint with the WRC on the 28/2/2024.

The worker contracted work-related SARS-CoV-2 in March 2020, which progressed to a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2/ Long-COVID illness /Post-COVID Syndrome in March 2021.

The worker has been on continuous sick leave due to this illness since 30/3/2021. Her (non -Covid) sick leave entitlements and annual leave entitlements ended in September 2021.All salary payments then ceased.

The employer never notified her in 2021 or 2022 of the entitlements which were specifically designed for staff who had contracted Covid -19 or who had succumbed to Long Covid. The employer’s relevant circular letter states that eligibility for payments should be brought to the attention of all staff, including those on leave. The employee was not notified of potential eligibility for payment of benefits. Also, her queries should have been forwarded to the HR/Employee Relations Department.

It took from 8 September 2021 to 1 July 2022 for the worker to receive an established, payment for staff suffering from Covid – 19.

The employer ignored many of her letters.

The respondent never advised her of the scope of the Grievance Procedure to process her concerns

The employer states that the worker failed to instigate a complaint either under the Dignity at Work Policy or under the Grievance Procedure. The Labour Court in Geoghegan T/A Taps v A Worker, INT1014, stated that they would not intervene in a dispute between the parties where the internal dispute resolution procedures had been bypassed.

The worker was provided with relevant Grievance Procedure and Dignity at Work Procedure in 2017 when she was appointed to her position and should have used them.

The employer did no more than apply their regulations in strict compliance with their terms to all staff in a fair and undifferentiated manner.

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

The dispute as presented at the hearing on 14/1/2025, concerns the employer’s neglect in not notifying her of her potential eligibility for Special leave With Pay, in 2021, 2022, which had ongoing consequences culminating in the refusal to pay her this benefit, and the employer’s failure to respond to her queries in a timely manner. SLWP was designed to assist staff suffering form Covid-19 and Long Covid.

The worker’s original complaint form referred to harassment by the employer. I find no basis for concluding that the employer’s reiteration of circular letters no matter how officious the tone, amounts to bullying or harassment. Similarly, I find no basis for disapplying the regulations concerning sick pay benefits in this instance. The full set of criteria were not met notwithstanding the worker’s communicated difficulties, unsupported by contemporaneous evidence at the material time, about her ability to meet all criteria.

The IR recommendation upon which the employer relies to argue that this complaint is inadmissible concerned the implementation or not of a registered agreement which in itself contained a disputes resolution procedure and is different to what obtains in this dispute.

While I accept that the complainant did not invoke either procedure available to employees in her workplace as required by the Act of 1969, it is the case that the employer was undeniably aware of the substance of her grievance – the amount of correspondence is immense, to put it mildly.

 But it is also clear that she was unhappy and perhaps mistaken in her view of her entitlements. The employer merely reiterated the text of the circular letters each time and did not offer the complainant an opportunity in which entitlements could be clarified and the matter closed.

She was not advised at the material time of her potential eligibility for payment of a sick leave benefit as was required by the employer’s own circular letters.

Again, I accept that upon commencement of her employment in 2017, she was provided with copies of relevant procedures, but moving forward, the employer failed to point her in the direction of the grievance procedure or dignity at work policy when she repeatedly expressed opposition to the employer’s perspective on how her situation should be managed.

There were serious delays in response to her queries.

In all of the circumstances and given that the starting point of this dispute was the employer’s dilatory and perfunctory response to how the worker’s salary loss could be minimised as a consequences of having contracted Covid – 19 and its aftermath in their workplace, I recommend the payment of €1500 as a full and final settlement of this dispute

Response of employer to requests for Post – Covid benefits.