ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00000493
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Worker | An Employer |
Representatives | Áine Feeney SIPTU | Brian Joyce IBEC |
Dispute(s):
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | IR - SC - 00000493 | 25/07/2022 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Date of Hearing: 23/07/2025
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended) following the referral of the dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute(s).
Background:
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The worker was off on long term sick leave, and she considered that she should have fallen within the critical illness protocol operated by the employer. She considered that she should fall under that due to the exceptional circumstances of her long service and lack of previous sick leave. A medical professional certified that she did not fall within the conditions governing the critical illness scheme. The worker was not satisfied with that and took a grievance to the employer. As part of the grievance procedure the matter was appealed and a second medical professional certified that she did not fall within the provisions of the critical illness protocol. She took a complaint to the WRC seeking a recommendation that the employer exercise its discretionary powers under the critical illness protocol. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The employer submitted that the matter was considered by two medical professionals who both certified independently of one another that the complainant did not fall within the critical illness protocol. The employer noted that it has already used its discretion and that the worker had been granted an additional four weeks paid sick leave. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. The worker is not arguing that the two medical professionals came to the wrong decision, she simply wishes the employer to look at the exceptional circumstances of this case and use its discretion to grant her cover under the protocol. The employer for its part noted that it has already used its discretion and granted the employee an additional four weeks cover under the protocol. In the interests of employee relations and moving forward with this complaint, I consider that it would be useful for the employer to reflect upon all the circumstances of this case one further time. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
My recommendation is that the employer give consideration to reflecting upon the exceptional circumstances under paragraph C of the critical illness protocol, the use of employer discretion and the facts of this case one more time.
Dated: 24th July 2025.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
IR complaint – critical illness protocol – employer discretion already used – reflect upon reconsideration of the facts of the case |