LCR23187

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00049353 (CA-00060534-001, IR-SC-00002049)

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 by An Garda Síochána of an Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation in relation to a complaint made by a Worker regarding loss of earnings when suspended from duty following an incident in 2021. The Worker was exonerated from criminal and disciplinary charges and returned to duties in May 2023.

The suspension policy is set out in the ‘Policy Document on the Suspension From Duty of Members of An Garda Siochana Under the Garda Siochana (Discipline) Regulations 2007 as Amended’.

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. During his suspension the Worker was deprived of income, pensionable allowances and advancement opportunities and was not treated with the presumption of innocence set out in the employer’s suspension policy.

The Association submits that the suspension policy had a punitive financial effect, in circumstances where the worker was ultimately cleared of all charges – both criminal and disciplinary. The Worker seeks compensation for his loss of allowances and overtime payments when suspended, which amount to an estimated €82,571.26, and for the detrimental impact on his pension under the Single Public Service Scheme.  Precedent exists within the employment for providing compensation for allowances not worked, where a worker is injured on duty or attending training courses. The same principle of fairness should apply in this case.

The Employer contends that the complaint is misconceived as monetary compensation for a period of perceived “loss” does not arise. The Worker is not entitled to be paid for unsocial hours not worked and not required to be worked. The policy provides for payment of 100% of basic pay by way of a Suspension Allowance.  Concession of the claim would undermine the Disciplinary and Suspension policies and have knock on implications for other personnel on suspension.

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

The Worker was exonerated more than two years after he was placed on suspension when criminal and disciplinary charges against him were dismissed, and he was allowed to return to duty. The worker takes issue with the fact that he received basic pay only for the duration of his suspension, as he lost the opportunity to achieve significant additional earnings during that period.

Both parties accept that the policy governing the suspension of workers provide for payment of a suspension allowance equivalent to 100% of basic pay for the period of suspension and that the worker in this case received the applicable suspension allowance. The policy does not provide for payment of additional allowances or overtime. The policy and applicable regulations do not provide for the application of any discretion or exceptions in any particular circumstances. The worker is seeking that the terms of that policy be set aside in his case.

When assisting parties resolve individual disputes the Court has no role or remit to step outside applicable processes and procedures. The Court notes that the suspension policy is contained in Regulations in place for this employment.  The Court is of the view that the policy in relation to payment when on suspension was applied correctly in this case.

The Court so decides.

	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.