Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Siavash Sefidvash

Dublin Bus

Representatives

Represented himself 

Michael McGrath, IBEC

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00069104-001

07/02/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport)(Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012

CA-00069104-002

07/02/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 18 of the Parental Leave Act 1998

CA-00069104-006

07/02/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 18 of the Parental Leave Act 1998

CA-00069104-007

07/02/2025

The complainant is a bus driver and he commenced working for the respondent on August 20th 2019.  He retired on December 15th 2024, having spent five years working out of the Dublin Bus Depot in Donnybrook.  On February 7th 2025, he submitted these complaints to the WRC.

At the opening of the hearing on June 6th 2025, it became apparent that there is one substantive complaint for which the complainant is seeking an enquiry.  This relates to the failure of the respondent to permit him to claim two days of force majeure leave on September 16th and October 14th 2024.  The complainant failed to report for work on these two days, and, in November, he asked applied for the days to be considered as force majeure leave, which he needed to take to look after his father.

On the form he submitted to the WRC on February 7th 2025, the complainant said that he had a good working relationship with his former manager, but not such a good relationship with his new manager, Mr Creed, who attended the hearing and who is the depot administration manager in Donnybook.  The complainant said that Mr Creed expected holiday requests and communications about time off to be made in person and not by email.

In the summer of 2023, the complainant was unhappy when Mr Creed rostered him to take 20 days’ holidays he had accumulated.  He said that he had nothing planned at the time.  He complained that, because there was no electronic back-up of his holiday record, he had no reminder of when he should have returned to work after his holidays and, because of confusion, he missed several days of work.  This resulted in a disciplinary sanction.  He complained also that he wasn’t able to choose when he took his holidays and that he had to use up his outstanding holidays before he retired.

The complainant said that he never took any force majeure leave, although his father is aged 97 and in chronic pain.  On September 16th and October 14th 2024, he said that he had to attend to his father and that his absence on those days should have come under the heading of force majeure leave.  He said that, in this regard, he expected to be treated in the same manner as his colleagues, who were permitted to take force majeure leave without having to provide evidence explaining the situation for which they needed the time off.  The complainant objects to the fact that Mr Creed asked for evidence to support his need for the urgent time off.

The complainant claims that he should not have to ask his father’s consultant to provide a letter to certify that his father is ill and he said that this request is “uncalled for” because he has never abused the force majeure leave provisions.  He said that he believes that Mr Creed acted in a discriminatory manner causing him unnecessary stress by seeking this certification.  Finally, he said that the management has not explained why he was refused pay for force majeure leave, when, he said, the Department of Social Protection pays for this leave.

In the submission he provided to the WRC on June 10th 2025, the complainant responded to my concern that he applied for force majeure leave on November 4th 2024, when the two days on which he was absent were September 16th and October 14th.  He said that, because of Mr Creed’s insistence on evidence for the reason for force majeure leave, he had no way of making a request without first obtaining his father’s medical records.  He said that this resulted in a prolonged period of lobbying, with the assistance of his union representative.  He said that many of his colleagues availed of force majeure leave “without the requirement for providing privileged family information.”  He said that, by demanding this information, the respondent was effectively asking for his father’s medical records which are protected under the General Data Protection Regulations.

The complainant said that the basis of his complaint is Mr Creed has treated him differently compared to his colleagues “who frequently take force majeure leave without the ordeal of having to provide sensitive family information.”

The complainant asked me to consider the contents of emails that he provided which, he claims, show how holiday requests were dealt with by his previous manager compared to how Mr Creed dealt with his requests.

In the two years before his retirement, Mr McGrath said that the complainant had seven unauthorised absences from work.  These are absences where he failed to inform his manager that he wouldn’t be at work.  Mr McGrath said that the complainant didn’t turn up for work on September 16th and October 14th 2024.  On November 4th, he asked for the days to be considered as force majeure leave.  He said that he had taken the time off to look after his father.  This is contrary to company policy, which requires written notification of a request for force majeure leave within a reasonable time.  The complainant refused to provide documentation to support his request for force majeure leave, and, for this reason, Mr McGrath said that the leave was refused.  The company followed its procedures on force majeure leave and the complainant was not penalised for submitting the request.  His terms and conditions of employment were not adversely affected by his request.

Penalisation

On the form he submitted to the WRC, the complainant claims that he was penalised for exercising his right to take parental leave.  The prohibition on penalisation is set out at s.16A of the Act, an amendment inserted by the Parental Leave (Amendment) Act 2006:

(1) An employer shall not penalise an employee for proposing to exercise or having exercised his or her entitlement to parental leave, force majeure leave, leave for medical care purposes, domestic violence leave or his or her entitlement to make a request referred to in section 13B(1) or 15A(2).

(2) Penalisation of an employee includes—

(a) dismissal of the employee,

(b) unfair treatment of the employee, including selection for redundancy, and

(c) an unfavourable change in the conditions of employment of the employee.

The complainant submitted no evidence that he suffered any of the detriments at (a), (b) or (c) above and I find that there is no substance to his complaint of penalisation.

Entitlement to Force Majeure Leave

It is clear from the complainant’s evidence that his grievance arises from his employer’s decision not to grant his request for force majeure leave.  This entitlement is set out at s.13 of the Act:

(1) An employee shall be entitled to leave with pay from his or her employment, to be known and referred to in this Act as “force majeure leave”, where, for urgent family reasons, owing to an injury to or the illness of a person specified in subsection (2), the immediate presence of the employee at the place where the person is, whether at his or her home or elsewhere, is indispensable.

(2) The persons referred to in subsection (1) are -

(a) a person of whom the employee is the parent or adoptive parent,

(b) the spouse of the employee or a person with whom the employee is living as husband or wife,

(c) a person to whom the employee is in loco parentis,

(d) a brother or sister of the employee,

(e) a parent or grandparent of the employee, and

(f) a person other than one specified in any of paragraphs (a) to (e), who resides with the employee in a relationship of domestic dependency.

Subsections 2A and 2B are not relevant to this complaint.

(3) When an employee takes force majeure leave, he or she shall, as soon as reasonably practicable thereafter, by notice in the prescribed form given to his or her employer, confirm that he or she has taken such leave and the notice shall specify the dates on which it was taken and contain a statement of the facts entitling the employee to force majeure leave.

(4) Force majeure leave shall consist of one or more days on which, but for the leave, the employee would be working in the employment concerned but shall not exceed 3 days in any period of 12 consecutive months or 5 days in any period of 36 consecutive months.

Subsection 5 is not relevant.

Findings

The complainant claims, in broad terms, that he was treated differently to his colleagues, but he provided no specific examples of this different treatment, except to assert that they were treated more favourably.  The fact that some employees availed of force majeure leave is not a case for everyone being entitled to the leave.  Certain criteria must apply and conditions are attached, albeit that the conditions are not onerous. 

An employee is entitled to force majeure leave when the reasons for the leave are urgent and there is an indispensable need for the employee to be with their injured or ill family member.  The Act can only have application on a day when all the circumstances set out in the Act at s.13(1) are present.  In accordance with s.13(3), when he returned to work, “as soon as reasonably practicable,” in the days after September 16th and October 14th, the complainant did not apply for time off to be with his father and he made no mention to his manager that his father had been ill.  It was only in early November that he completed a form to apply for force majeure leave.

It is my view that, having applied for force majeure leave six weeks after his absence on September 16th and more than two weeks after his absence on October 14th, the complainant has not complied with the “reasonably practicable” requirement of s.13(3) above.  For this reason, I am not satisfied that he was entitled to the leave.

CA-00069104-001:  Complaint under the Terms of Employment (information) Act 1994

As the complainant provided no evidence to support a complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, I decide that this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00069104-002:  Complaint under Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport)(Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012

As the complainant provided no evidence to support a complaint under the Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport)(Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012, I decide that this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00069104-006:  Complaint under the Parental Leave Act 1998

I have concluded that, in November 2024, the complainant was not entitled to force majeure leave and I decide therefore, that this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00069104-007:  Complaint under the Parental Leave Act 1998

This complaint is a duplicate of the complaint above and, for this reason, I decide that it is not well founded.

Force majeure leave