Case Number: ADJ-00003880. Workplace Relations Commission

• Docket Number: ADJ-00003880
• Hearing Date: 02 February 2017
• Date: 01 February 2018
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission
• Parties: An Officer V A Public Service Body
• Respondent: A Public Service Body

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISIONS

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00003880

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	An Officer	A Public Service Body

Representatives None Peter Leonard BL, instructed by the Chief State Solicitor’s Office

Complaints:

Act	Complaint Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977	CA-00005619-001	01/07/2016
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991	CA-00005619-002	01/07/2016
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998	CA-00005619-003	01/07/2016
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00005619-004	01/07/2016

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 02/02/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham

Procedure:

On the 1st July 2016, the complainant referred complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission pursuant to the Unfair Dismissals Act, the Payment of Wages Act, the Employment Equality Act and the Organisation of Working Time Act. The complaints were scheduled for adjudication on the 2nd February 2017. The complainant attended the adjudication and was accompanied by a former colleague. Peter Leonard, BL, instructed by the Chief State Solicitor’s Office, represented the respondent. Six witnesses attended for the respondent.

In accordance with Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015, Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.

Background:

The complainant is an officer and her employment ended by way of ill-health retirement on the 13th February 2016. She claims unfair dismissal, discrimination and breaches in relation to public holidays and payments demanded of her. The respondent denies the claims.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The complainant outlined that her employment with the respondent commenced in 1999. She held the role of Officer in the respondent service, and was based in a named facility. In 2011, the complainant had spinal surgery followed by a difficult recovery. Her medical advice was that she would not recover fully. She was out on sick leave for a period in 2012 and met with the respondent Chief Medical Officer in November 2012. By this time, she had applied for ill-health retirement and this was under consideration by the respondent for some ten months. The Chief Medical Officer later informed the complainant that she would not be getting ill-health retirement. She was assigned to work in the control room of a named facility, but she knew that this would not be appropriate as it meant sitting down all day. She appealed the decision to refuse her application for ill-health retirement and this appeal was dealt with by an independent party. This party informed the complainant that she was too young to retire. She said that she could not do full duties and he assessed her for specific roles, for example in control rooms, including one in a named facility. The party told her that all the control rooms were the same, but the complainant did not agree with this, as the one she was assigned to was the worst as it was underground and had no facilities. The other control rooms had their own facilities and had a window. The complainant said that she should not have been assigned to work in the control room of the court facility and her own doctor wrote to say that it was not suitable. She should have been left on sick leave. The complainant started in the control room of the named facility in July 2013 and worked 8am to 5pm alternative weeks of Tuesday, Wednesday or Tuesday to Thursday. This was a job share and she was not able to work more hours. She wrote to the respondent to complain of the decision to assign her to this role. This was acknowledged by the respondent. The complainant described the role as static, based in a dark room, with no fresh air or access to facilities without obtaining relief. She asked the respondent for an independent assessment of the position and was informed that it had been carried out. She was informed that the Chief Medical Officer had visited the room but she said that he was not independent. The Chief Medical Officer had recommended an ergonomic assessment and recommended alternative duties to alleviate her isolation. The complainant made the suggestions to the respondent regarding roles in the district office and the pay office. She was then suffering from depression and made many complaints to the respondent. Her job-sharing role should have been reviewed after three months, but no such review took place. It had been clear that she would not be fully functional in the role. The complainant outlined that she made a second application for ill-health retirement and was sent for a functional capacity test. While the Chief Medical Officer had recommended an ergonomic assessment, he had not recommended a functional capacity evaluation. She explained that an ergonomic assessment differed to a health and safety assessment, and assessed the person in the workplace. A...