LCR23186

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00049353 (CA-00060661-001, IR-SC-00002070)

BACKGROUND:

The Employer appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 09 January 2025 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 22 August 2025.

RECOMMENDATION:

This is an appeal of an Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation in relation to a complaint about the employer’s application of procedures when the Worker was suspended from duty.

In April 2021, the Worker was suspended from duty following an incident at work when he assisted a colleague restrain an assailant. Criminal proceedings were instigated against the Worker, and the disciplinary process was paused pending the outcome of those proceedings. In May 2023, criminal charges against the worker were dismissed and the disciplinary process immediately closed. The Worker returned to duties.

The Association, on behalf of the worker, submits that the suspension period for more than two years far exceeded any reasonable timeframe for a “holding” suspension and that the employer failed to adhere to terms of its suspension policy. At the hearing the Association outlined an extensive list of matter which it contends are breaches of the policy by the employer.

The Employer’s position is it has the right to suspend staff where it is deemed appropriate. It submits that it complied fully with the terms of the policy, which is set out by way of statutory instrument.

The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions of the parties.

The role of the Court in an appeal of this nature is to set out its opinion on the merits of the dispute, when asked to do so, and the basis upon which it should be resolved having regard to principles of fairness and good practice. The Court notes that the suspension policy in place in the employment is set out in the ‘Policy Document on the Suspension From Duty of Members of An Garda Síochána Under the Garda Síochána (Discipline) Regulations 2007 as Amended’.

The Court must confine itself to consideration of the appeal as a matter of industrial relations.

The Worker in this case was suspended from duties for more than two years before he was exonerated and criminal charges against him dismissed.

Matters in the case were complicated as the employer has a dual function in suspending the worker pending a workplace investigation into a disciplinary matter and investigating criminal proceedings against him. The disciplinary process was paused while criminal proceedings progressed, which the Court heard was a common practice to ensure that a worker does not prejudice their own defence in the legal proceeding. While that may be so, the fact that criminal proceedings were ongoing does not absolve the employer of their obligations under the suspension policy.

Having regard to the oral and written submissions made at the hearing, it appears to the Court that the application of the policy in this case lacked transparency, and several provisions were not followed.

The Worker was not informed of the reason for his initial suspension, as required under the policy. Thereafter, it is not clear to the Court what process was undertaken by the employer to comply with the terms of the policy dealing with reviewing his ongoing suspension. Provisions in the policy in relation to monthly meetings with a Liaison Officer were not followed.  The Worker was not notified of internal vacancies while suspended, as required.

The policy is silent on certain other matters raised by the worker.  He takes issue that the findings of a review exercise undertaken during the suspension period was not shared with him, which he contends was relevant to any decision about his ongoing suspension. The Court heard that the policy in place at that time did not provide an appeals process or a mechanism to make submissions to decision makers.

The policy sets the practice and process to be followed when a worker is suspended from work. Accordingly, there is an onus and obligation on the employer to fully comply with the terms of the policy. Such adherence and compliance takes on even greater significance where a suspension continues for a protracted period. In the view of the Court, such compliance did not happen in this case. 

It does not automatically follow that in cases where procedures are not adhered to that monetary compensation should arise as a resolution. However, having regard to the particular circumstances arising in this case, the Court recommends that the worker be paid compensation of €5,000 in full and final settlement of the matter.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
Al	______________________
7 October 2025	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Amy Leonard, Court Secretary.