HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE
1.Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision no. ADJ-00024306 CA-00030995-001
B. The respondent advises the claimant of the time frame where her (claimant) choice will be implemented.”
A Labour Court hearing took place on 18 December 2020.
The Court has been assured by the Claimant that she wishes to return to work and has been assured by the Respondent that it wishes the Claimant to return to work.
Both parties accepted before the Court that the Claimant’s return to work must be to a job which actually exists and for which the Claimant is qualified. In that context the Respondent has identified the following as options available to Claimant to achieve a return to work:
The Respondent has confirmed that if the Claimant chooses one of these options then she would be facilitated with a direct take up of such a role rather than having her take up any other role first.
The Respondent also confirmed that it would be agreeable to engage with the Claimant so as to explore all options in terms of existing job roles in which the Claimant is qualified and could be accommodated.
The Claimant, at the hearing of the Court, agreed that the approach set out by the Respondent seemed reasonable.
In all of the circumstances, the Court recommends that the Claimant should agree to take up one of the options identified by the Respondent or to engage in a solution based discussion with the Respondent which would realistically focus only on real roles which actually exist and which would be available for the Claimant to take up. While the Court recognises that this level of facilitation is highly unusual in any employment, it is clear that the dispute before the Court is unusual in itself and justifies an unusual approach. That engagement, if required, will result in the Claimant being able to take up the best available option for a return to her employment.
The Court so decides.