Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Police Officer

A Police Force

Representatives

Representative Association

Employee Relations Manager

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 - 00003665

16/01/2025

The Police Officer is currently working a three-day week on medical advice following a work-related injury. She retains the benefits of a full-time police officer, including the same annual leave entitlements.

The Police Officer states that she is required to use a full five days of annual leave when requesting time off that spans a calendar week — even though she is only scheduled to work on three of those days. She asserts that this is unfair.

The dispute arises from the requirement that the Police Officer must use annual leave to cover not only her rostered working days but also her medically prescribed rest days. In practice, although she is scheduled to work only three days per week, she must take five annual leave days to be absent for a full calendar week.

This practice stems from internal directives issued by the employer’s Human Resources Directorate (HRD), which were implemented without proper consultation or agreement through established mechanisms such as Conciliation and Arbitration. These instructions assert that taking leave within the reduced shift pattern complies with medical advice and therefore negates the need for additional medical rest days. The Police Officer stated that the effect is a significant and unjust reduction in her annual leave entitlement.

The Police Officer stated that that this policy misclassifies medically necessary recovery time as standard annual leave, thereby violating both EU law and Irish statutory protections. Annual leave is intended to be a period of genuine rest and relaxation—not a replacement for time needed to manage a medical condition.

Moreover, the imposition of this policy without formal agreement renders it procedurally flawed.

The Police Officer therefore contends that the current practice breaches both the Working Time Directive and national legislation, and seeks reimbursement of any annual leave improperly deducted, in order to restore her full entitlements.

The Employer stated that the core of the dispute concerns the interpretation of recommendations made by the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) and how they impact the Officer’s entitlement to annual leave and rest days.

The Employer stated that the Police Officer is not being treated unfairly by being required to use annual leave not only for scheduled working days but also for medically advised rest days within the same week. They stated that the CMO advice simply limits the Police Officer to a maximum of three working days per week, without designating specific rest days. Any days beyond those three are considered working days until the attendance limit is reached. Therefore, if the Police Officer uses annual leave for less than three days, she must remain available for duty on other weekdays until the three-day limit is met.

The Employer also highlighted that the Police Officer continues to receive full pay and annual leave entitlements equivalent to those of full-time colleagues.

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

I note, firstly, that the Worker receives the same annual leave entitlement as full-time employees. Over the course of the year, she is entitled to take the same total number of weeks away from work as her full-time colleagues. This places her in a comparatively favourable position, given that part-time workers typically have their leave entitlements pro-rated.

While I acknowledge that the Worker must use five days of annual leave to take a full week off, despite working only three days per week, her leave entitlement nonetheless enables her to fully step away from the workplace for the same duration as her full-time peers. In that respect, her access to annual leave remains equitable in terms of time away from duties.

I also find that introducing an individualised model of leave deduction in her case could lead to inconsistencies in the employer's broader leave management system. Granting the concession sought in this case would result in the Worker receiving significantly more annual leave than a full-time police officer, which may give rise to perceptions of unfairness across the organisation.

For these reasons, I am unable to recommend concession of this complaint.