ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00004134
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Police Worker | A Policing Organisation |
Representatives | Representative association | Employee Relations |
Dispute:
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 - 00004134 | 16/04/2025 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Date of Hearing: 30/06/2025
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended) following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute.
Background:
The worker submits that the employer has failed to follow procedural timelines. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The worker submits that the employer failed to abide by time frames as outlined in HQ Directive 139/2010 which would have resulted in a more timely return to work of the worker if the issues causing the stress were addressed immediately. The employer has not engaged in local level discussion and the worker has been assessed by the Chief Medical Officer and is currently awaiting their report. The worker first reported as sick on 30/11/2024 and was referred by management on 16/01/2025 in breach of procedural timelines.
Case law cited included Deming Gao v The Commissioner of An Garda Siochana [2018] IEHC 244, e Garda Representative Association & Another v the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform [2014] IEHC 457, |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The employer submits that their decision is informed by the decision of the CMO and they are awaiting their decision regarding the worker and that it would have been premature to meet with the worker.
Case law cited included South Dublin County Council & A Worker LCR 22749. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
It would appear that there are a number of other matters attached to their grievance and I note that the worker and employer have not engaged in local level discussion on the matter. Reference was made to HQ Directive 139/2010 which is the sickness absence management policy and which has been reviewed.
I recommend therefore that: Parties meet locally as a matter of significant urgency upon receipt of the report from the CMO. The employer should engage with the worker with regards to his return to work in line with normal procedures and while also ensuring that the such engagement is done in a meaningfully manner.
|
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I recommend therefore that: Parties meet locally as a matter of significant urgency upon receipt of the report from the CMO. The employer should engage with the worker with regards to his return to work in line with normal procedures and while also ensuring that the such engagement is done in a meaningfully manner.
|
Dated: 17-07-25
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Key Words:
Time lines, dispute resolution |