Paul McGrath (Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 168: To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children further to her responses to Parliamentary Questions Nos. 187, 189 and 190 of 5 April 2006, if her Department is responsible for residual matters that arise from the dissolution of the National Rehabilitation Board. [17074/06]

Tim O'Malley (Limerick East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In line with government mainstreaming policy the National Rehabilitation Board was dissolved and responsibility for its functions was transferred to a number of successor organisations/statutory bodies including, the National Disability Authority, Foras Áiseanna Saothair, the former Eastern Regional Health Authority and Comhairle by Statutory Instrument Number 170, National Rehabilitation Board (Transfer of Property, Rights and Liabilities) Order, 2000 and Statutory Instrument Number 171, National Rehabilitation Board (Dissolution and Revocation) Order, 2000.

Paul McGrath (Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 169: To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children if, noting the decision of the Employment Appeals Tribunal of 10 April 2002 concerning the treatment of the 184 staff of the National Rehabilitation Board at the time of dissolution on 12 June 2000 by her Department, the confirmation of this decision by the High Court on 1 July 2003, she will review implications of these decisions and make the necessary proposals to all of the staff so affected. [17075/06]

Mary Harney (Dublin Mid West, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The matter referred to by the Deputy is a technical legal matter concerning a case taken by an individual to the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) and appealed to the High Court. I am advised as follows: the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) decision of 19 April 2002 referred to did not address the treatment of the 184 staff of the National Rehabilitation Board at the time of dissolution on 12 June 2000. The EAT decided to the effect that one named employee of the National Rehabilitation Board (NRB) had been dismissed (within the special meaning of the section 21 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967) by reason of redundancy, being therefore entitled to a redundancy payment. The EAT decided that the Minister for Health and Children was the appropriate respondent. The individual concerned had not accepted employment with any of the designated public bodies under the relevant Statutory Instruments on the dissolution of the NRB and filed a claim for redundancy with the EAT.

On appeal to The High Court against the decision that the Minister was the appropriate respondent, the Court in July 2003 found that the EAT had erred in law in determining that the Minister for Health and Children was the representative of the National Rehabilitation Board. It was not for the Court to legislate for someone in the defendant's position i.e. being a person who had been found to have been made redundant in certain circumstances and liability for such circumstances had not been transferred under the SI.

On foot of the decision of the High Court, the EAT on the 13th February, 2004 made a finding of redundancy in the case of the individual concerned against the NRB (Dissolved), stating that the amount due was payable from the Social Insurance Fund. It is important for the Deputy to understand that the EAT did not address the position of the 184 staff of the NRB; it dealt solely with a claim by one individual who did not accept employment with one of the bodies under the SI.