Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Public Service

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 - 00003013

19/08/2024

The issue in dispute was the classification of a period of Sick leave as “Injury on Duty” or “Ordinary Illness.” The Worker had a serious Road Traffic incident in July 2020 resulting in an absence from work of some 15 months. In August 2023 he underwent further surgery which he claimed was as a consequence of the first incident. The Employer refused to allow the second incident be treated as part of the first Injury on duty resulting in considerable financial loss to the Worker.

The employment began on the 13th September 2007 and continues. The rate of pay was stated to be €1,188 for a 40-hour week.

The Worker was represented by Mr C O’Neill from his representative Association /Trade Union. The essence of the case was that the second period of illness was directly connected to the first incident and should have been paid in the same fashion.

Considerable case law and detailed copy correspondence with considerable medical evidence was presented. The case of Deming Gao v The Commissioner of an Garda Siochana [2018] IEHC 244 was extensively quoted especially Para 59 of the judgement where Mr Justice Coffey discussed the Injury on Duty v/v ordinary Sick Leave question.

In summation Mr O’ Neill argued that the Deming Gao case had not been fully understood by the Management. Mr Justice Coffey highlighted the question of “Wilful negligence” which was clearly absent in this case.

The clear implication was that the Worker concerned here was due to be paid his full salary for the period in question (some 21 weeks). He had received half pay.

Additional case law from the Adjudication Service was also referred to especially a recent case IR-SC-00003099 which had found in a Worker’s favour.

The granting of Sick leave and especially Sick leave following Injury on Duty is well governed by extensive internal Regulations -specifically the procedures known as “Section 11.37” of the organisation’s rules and regulations. All proper procedures were followed. The advice of the internal Chief Medical Officer was followed. The Worker was not treated unfairly or outside of normal procedures and can have no sustainable case. Concession of the Worker’s claim would have considerable possible knock-on consequential claims implications for the Organisation.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

This case is taken under the Industrial Relations Act,1969. The function and spirit of the Act is the resolution of Disputes or at least moving them forward to where the Parties can amicably reach a resolution by their own efforts. It is not a vehicle for the examination of complex and extensive Legal issues and or, especially in this case, almost Byzantian internal regulations that govern a major public service comprised of Sworn / Attested members.

There were two Hearings in this case. The first was on the 3rd December 2024. The case was discussed in full with the Adjudication Officer.

Following the first hearing, the Adjudication Officer wrote to both Parties optimistically expressing a view that the Parties were, he hoped, moving to an amicable solution. Regrettably this did not come to pass, and a Second Hearing took place on the 9th April 2025.

From an experienced Industrial Relations viewpoint, the Adjudication Officer regrettably came to the view that vastly unnecessary complexities , decision making circularities etc , had caused the basic Industrial Relations & Human Resources issue regarding a single worker , to be lost sight of.

The Adjudication Officer was much reassured by the Oral testimony and pragmatic, if somewhat frustrated, Industrial Relations approach of the front-line Parties involved on either side.

It was clear from the materials presented and verbally discussed that the Sick Pay Systems were under review between the Organisation and the Associations especially the “Section 11:37” procedures. The Representative Association present acknowledged that this would not be an easy task for either side.

The Deming Gao v The Commissioner of an Garda Siochana [2018] IEHC 244 especially Para 59 was considered.

On balance having heard all the Oral materials and read all the extensive written submissions, it was clear, that the Worker of some 16 years’ service was reduced to half pay in late 2023. The Reports of the Chief Medical Officer, while not definitive in either direction as to a link to the 2020 accident, do acknowledge that the Worker underwent surgery in late 2023. From the files presented a considerable “round the houses” bureaucratic process then developed within the Organisation. An exit, resolution, strategy from this process was not immediately evident.

In summary and from a pure Industrial Relations viewpoint, in the overall spirit of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, the Adjudication Officer view has to be a Recommendation that the Pay of the Worker concerned be reinstated for the period in question.  

Higher “Points of Principal” can be debated /considered in the ongoing Overall Review process referred to by the Parties.

The absence, to avoid unnecessary descriptive issues in any overall review of the Systems currently underway, can be described as “Administrative Special leave” or other suitably vague phraseology that may be convenient for the Parties.

Sick leave, Injury on Duty.