Postal firm ordered to pay €8.5k to man with 'bad back' for not offering him delivery job

The employer stated that the CMO and our OHA “are aware of the demand that the role places on an individual’s body climbing in and out of a van over 150 times on average a day, lifting parcels of varying sizes and weight, bending down to put letters in letter boxes and in their professional opinion, it would be unsafe for him to do so.” File picture

A postal company has been ordered to pay €8,500 compensation in a discrimination award to a man after its failure to offer him a postman’s job over his ‘bad back’.

At the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), adjudicator Conor Stokes has ordered the unnamed 'postal distribution company' to pay €8,500 compensation to the complainant after finding that he was discriminated against on the grounds of disability under the Employment Equality Act.

The man submitted that he suffers from an abnormality of the vertebra in his spine and has suffered from chronic pain as a result for many years.

He outlined to the WRC that he had surgery seven years ago to undergo spinal cord stimulation and that this resulted in significant pain relief and a restoration of function to him.

However, the man also confirmed that his treatment is a pain management device rather than an indication of absence of pain. He confirmed that he doesn’t know if he feels pain as he had never turned the device off.

The man — represented by solicitor, Glenn Cooper of Limerick based Dundon Callanan Solicitors — told the hearing that he was able and capable to undertake the role of postal operative and further submitted that an employer cannot reject someone on the basis of a disability.

He stated that he was refused employment on the basis of his disability.

In January 2021, the man was successful at interview for the role of postal operative and was placed on a panel subject to security and medical clearance.

However, the man was subsequently assessed by the employer’s Occupational Health Advisor (OHA) who made a decision to refer the case to the Chief Medical Officer (CMO). The CMO then deemed the complainant fit for work but with the caveat that it would be unsafe for him to do heavy manual handling.

Employer's argument

The employer submitted that the complainant was then advised in May 2021 that he had not received the required medical clearance and that the company would no longer be in a position to offer the complainant the role of Postal Operative.

The complainant submitted that the CMO did not meet with him, nor seek information from his GP or other health professionals and discriminated against him when concluding that although he was medically fit, it would be unsafe for him to do heavy manual handling.

The employer stated that the CMO and our OHA “are aware of the demand that the role places on an individual’s body climbing in and out of a van over 150 times on average a day, lifting parcels of varying sizes and weight, bending down to put letters in letter boxes and in their professional opinion, it would be unsafe for him to do so.” 

At hearing, the employer argued that as a responsible employer it has a duty of care not only to its existing employees, but to any potential employees to ensure their health and safety while at work.

It said: “This is exactly what was done in this instance and to have employed the complainant into a role that he was incapable of performing, and that would place his health and safety in jeopardy, would have been negligent on their part."

WRC findings

However, in his findings Mr Stokes said that while the CMO found that it would be unsafe for the complainant to do heavy manual handling “there was no assessment of the manual handling element of the role and how much of that was light or heavy, or even a breakdown of how much manual handling the role involved”.

Mr Stokes said: “The closest we came to an assessment of this element of the role was during cross-examination when the complainant indicated that the job might consist of 'driving, in and out, and some manual handling' and it was put to him that it involved 'quite a lot of manual handling'.

"It may be the case that the Chief Medical Officer had such a breakdown available to him, but this was neither asserted nor provided to the Commission.”

Finding that the man was discriminated against, Mr Stokes concluded that the assessment of the role and of the complainant’s capability to undertake the core or other tasks of the role of postal worker “is crucial to the case but was not, to my mind, adequately considered or noted”.

Mr Stokes stated that on the basis of an average postal operative base salary of €34,000 per annum, he was satisfied that compensation equivalent to three months’ salary, €8,500, would be appropriate based on the man’s job application to cover short-term vacancies.