Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Louise  Hogan

The Coombe Hospital

Representatives

Daire Ferguson Ibec

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00069007-001

03/02/2025

The Complainant commenced her employment as a Chief Medical Scientist with the Respondent on 1 October 2021. She went on a period of sick leave on 1 March 2021. She stated that the Respondent reduced and then stopped her sick‑leave pay prematurely during a continuous period of certified illness that began on 10 October 2024, despite her view that she had not exhausted her entitlements.

The Complainant stated that the Respondent unlawfully reduced and later stopped her sick‑leave pay during a continuous period of certified sick leave that began on 10 October 2024. She asserted that this was done prematurely and without a lawful calculation.

She stated the Respondent relied on incorrect methods, including an hours‑based cap that does not appear in the Respondent’s own policy, and that several errors inflated her sick‑leave totals—for example, the inclusion of a date before she was employed, the counting of public holidays as sick leave, and the treatment of certain COVID‑related absences. She also asserted that, even on the Respondent’s own figures, her recorded usage fell below the threshold that would have ended full‑pay entitlement, meaning that the move to half pay was not authorised under the Respondent’s own policy.

While the Complainant accepted that national public‑service arrangements form part of the landscape she asserted that these do not override the Respondent’s local policy unless expressly incorporated. She stated that the Respondent failed to demonstrate that the national thresholds were lawfully reached and therefore failed to justify the reduction in pay. As such, she stated that the reduction of wages in January 2025, and the cessation of pay later in February, amounted to unlawful deductions under the Payment of Wages Act.

The Respondent stated that the Complainant received all pay properly due. They stated that the Complainant’s sick‑leave entitlement is governed by the Public Service Management (Sick Leave) Regulations, as updated for the health sector.

The Respondent highlighted that the Complainant’s contract, states that sick pay is to be made in accordance with the arrangements approved by the Minister “from time to time.” They stated that this clause imports the national public‑service scheme and supersedes any older local policy. Under that national scheme, an employee who has exhausted 92 days’ full‑pay sick leave in the relevant 12‑month look‑back must move to half‑pay, followed by no pay once the overall four‑year threshold is reached.

The Respondent stated that the Complainant reached the 92‑day full‑pay limit on 9 January 2025. From 10 January, therefore, they were obliged to place her on half‑pay, and the January payslip reflected that lawful adjustment. They asserted that there was no unlawful deduction because the amount paid was the amount properly payable under the scheme. They also highlighted that they notified the Complainant of the impending change, and that payroll calculations were carried out in line with the governing national rules.

I note firstly that complaint was lodged on 3 February 2025. I can therefore only examine the period that falls within the cognisable six‑month window backward from that point and have no jurisdiction in respect of any payments that were made to the Complainant after this date.

Having considered the evidence and reviewed the submissions from the parties in respect of the disputed payment made to her in January 2025, I note, crucially in my view, that the contractual provision surrounding sick leave entitlements, refers to “arrangements as approved from time to time by the Minister” and find that this is clear in its effect. It means, in my view, that the Respondent, in deciding what sick payments to make, must adhere not to a local policy but to the national regulatory framework that applies across the public service as approved by the Minister.

In examining if the wages paid to the Complainant in January 2025 were those properly payable at the time, I note that her entitlement to full‑pay sick leave had concluded on 9 January 2025 in accordance with the applicable public‑service sick‑leave scheme, and that the payslip issued at the end of that month accurately reflects payment at the half‑pay rate from 10 January onwards. Having regard to the governing contractual provision, which, as I have found above, ties sick‑leave pay to the arrangements approved by the Minister, I am satisfied that the January reduction represented the lawful application of the national scheme. The complaint of an unlawful deduction is therefore not well‑founded.

I find that this complaint is not well founded for the reasons set out above.