LCR23280

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00058409 (CA-00070917-001 IR-SC-00004147).

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 27 March 2026 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

On 11 March 2026 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:

“For the reasons set out above, and due to the particular circumstances in which the Worker found herself, I recommend the Employer pays the Worker compensation of €2,000 within 42 days of the issuing of this Recommendation in full and final settlement of this dispute.’’

A Labour Court hearing took place on 18 June 2026.

DECISION:

This matter before the Court is an appeal of a Recommendation of an Adjudication Officer under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969.

The Adjudication Officer made a recommendation in relation to two related complaints under the Act: IR - SC – 00004147 -and IR - SC - 00004148 each of which has been appealed by the Worker. The Court heard the appeal in Dublin on 18 June 2026. IR - SC - 00004148 is dealt with in Determination LCR23281.

The Worker, who is a serving Member of An Garda Siochana, objects to the classification of her absence from duty between 25 September 2024 and 15 December 2024 as ordinary sick leave. The Worker seeks a recommendation that her absence is reclassified as an absence other than sick leave, with a restoration of all entitlements and appropriate compensation for the loss and distress.

Summary of Worker’s Case:

The Worker suffers from a medical condition for which a reasonable accommodation was formally approved by management. In September 2024, notwithstanding that there was no change to her medical condition, management unilaterally withdrew the approved working arrangement. This direction conflicted with existing medical advice.

As a direct consequent of management’s action, the worker suffered significant workplace-related stress and was deemed medically unfit to attend work between 25 September 2024 and 15 December 2024. Her absence persisted until she was reviewed by the Chief Medical Officer (CMO), at which point she returned to work immediately. Despite the clear causal link between the withdrawal of reasonable accommodation and her injury, her absence was recorded as ordinary sick leave.

The Worker sought that her absence be classified as an ‘injury on duty’ in accordance with mandatory procedures prescribed by Garda Code Chapter 11:37. The application was not processed in accordance with those procedures.

The mandated procedure for determining the classification of absences was not followed in that the decision to classify the absence as ordinary illness came from the Head of HR Directorate and a complete investigation file and properly informed CMO advice were not in place at the time the decision was made.

The Worker requests the Court to recommend that her absence from work be classified as an injury on duty or, in the alternative, the decision refusing her request to have the absent classified as personal injury be set aside and the matter reconsidered/reclassified by the properly designated decision-maker following full compliance of the mandatory procedures.

The Worker further seeks a finding that she was denied fair procedures when management failed to follow the correct procedures and an award of adequate compensation.

Summary of Employer’s Case:

Regulations governing sick pay (as supplemented by the Code & Directive 139/2010) distinguish between ‘injury on duty’ and ordinary illness. Code 11.37 and Directive 139/2010 provide the procedures to be followed where a Worker suffers injury on duty.

In advance of the implementation of the new rostering arrangements - governed by the Midlands Working Time Agreement (MWTA) which came into effect on 30 September 2024 - the Worker was invited to submit further GP’s advice for consideration to resolve rostering issues. No updated medical advice was received in advance of the implementation of the national agreement. Management acted in good faith implementing the agreed rostering arrangement.

The Worker was absent on work-related stress from 25 September 2024 until 15 December 2024. When issues with the Worker’s roster were formally raised, management moved swiftly to resolve that matter. The grievance was resolved on 13 December 2024. The Worker returned to work.

The Worker sought that her absence be classified as an injury at work. The injury on duty scheme supports members facing injury or illness attributable to injuries incurred in the execution of duty due to the nature of the role, as opposed to work-related stress said to be caused by an administrative decision. For this reason, injury on duty is not available to all personnel within the service. Furthermore, a communication issued to senior leadership in 2021 to advise that work related stress is to be referred to the Sick Section for consideration.

The Worker took issue with how the decision was reached to decline her application to have her absence classified as an injury at work and submits that the application was not processed in line with the Garda Code. While the Worker is entitled to a reasonable and fair process regarding the classification of her absence, she is not entitled to a perfect one. The rationale for the decision not to award the 11:37 certificate was appropriate and was communicated to the Worker without delay.

A decision is to be made by the Office of the Executive Director People and Development.  The Director of Human Resources is, in effect, the deputy to the Executive Director People and Development. The decision was communicated directly to the Worker by an Assistance Principal Officer on 24 February 2024.

The Worker’s claim is not a reasonable one, as the substantive issue of the rostering dispute was resolved in a timely manner once raised. Management seeks that the Court find in favour of Management’s position and recommend that the Worker accept that this matter has been brought to a conclusion and that no compensation should apply.

Recommendation

The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions made at the hearing.

The Worker’s representative raised several issues in relation to Management’s rejection of the Worker’s application to have her absence classified as an injury on duty, some of which are addressed in LCR23281.

The Worker found herself in a difficult position, when local management unilaterally withdrew approved accommodations regarding her working arrangements. The Court notes that the rostering issue was ultimately resolved. However, had local management followed the existing medical advice while awaiting the CMO’s assessment and not directed the Worker to work a different roster the matters giving rise to this dispute would not have developed as they did.

The nub of the Worker’s complaint on appeal is that she wishes to have her absence classified as an ‘injury on duty’ rather than ordinary sick leave. To resolve that matter, the Worker seeks that the Court recommend that her absence be classified as an injury on duty or, in the alternative, recommend the decision refusing to classify the absence as injury on duty be set aside. That would entail a finding by the Labour Court that there was an injury on duty in this case. The Labour Court has consistently held that it is not its role to insert itself into the decision-making role of an employer.  

The Worker further seeks a finding that she was denied fair procedures when management failed to follow the correct procedures and is seeking an award of appropriate compensation that adequately reflects the gravity of the breaches and acts as a meaningful deterrent against similar failures in the future. Management’s position is that the Worker’s absence was appropriately classified in this case, albeit it accepted that the decision-making procedure in this case “was not followed to the letter of the law”.

The Court notes that management did not appeal the Adjudication Officer’s recommendation. Having regard to the specific circumstances of this case, the Court recommends that the Employer pays the Worker compensation of €4,000 in full and final settlement of this dispute.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
TH	______________________
20/07/2026	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Therese Hickey, Court Secretary.