Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Krystyna  Konieczna

Forvis Mazars Ireland Limited (amended on consent at the hearing)

Representatives

  Self-Represented

Hayes solicitors LLP  

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-00071983-001

29/05/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946

CA-00071983-002

29/05/2025

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

CA-00071983-003

29/05/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Sick Leave Act 2022

CA-00071983-004

29/05/2025

The Complainant, a Senior Accountant, with the Respondent from 13 September 2018 until 15 May 2025. At the hearing she gave her evidence on Affirmation.

Sarah Sheerin, HR Business Partner gave evidence on Affirmation on behalf of the Respondent. Submission were submitted and documentation were relied upon in evidence.

Anne Lyne, Partner and Éibhín Stapleton, solicitor at Hayes solicitors LLP instructed by Liz Buckley, HR Director at Forvis Mazars. Josephine Moloney, Talent Support Coordinator was also in attendance.

At the outset of the hearing, the Complainant advised a number of complaints had been resolved and therefore withdrawn; CA-00071983-001 and CA-00071983-002

The Complainant gave sworn evidence that she had been on continuous certified sick leave since 15 May 2023 and that throughout this period she sought clarity from the Respondent regarding her contractual and statutory entitlements. She stated that she relied on information provided by the Respondent and reasonably believed that her position was being managed in accordance with her contract of employment and Irish employment legislation. The Complainant maintained that there was a lack of clear and consistent information provided to her while she was absent on sick leave, which caused confusion and was to her detriment.

In relation to sick pay and long‑term disability benefit, the Complainant stated that she was contacted by the Respondent in or around October 2023 and asked to attend a company‑nominated medical assessment. She confirmed that she agreed to do so, on the understanding that long‑term disability benefit would be activated in line with Clause 17 of her contract and the Employee Handbook. The Complainant gave evidence that despite meeting the eligibility criteria and engaging with the Respondent, no disability benefit was paid to her, and no clear explanation or follow‑up correspondence was provided. She stated that she felt misled as to her entitlements and unsupported during a prolonged period of illness.

The Complainant further gave evidence that the Respondent did not notify her of the merger and the change of the Respondent’s name.

Under cross‑examination, the Complainant accepted that she had been on certified sick leave from 15 May 2023 and that she did not receive long‑term disability payments during that period. She accepted that she did not submit a formal written complaint to Irish Life, the Respondent’s nominated provider, regarding non payment of disability benefit and that she relied primarily on communications with the Respondent.

It was put to her that she had received communications from HR in October 2023 outlining sick pay and disability benefit information and that no further follow‑up was made by her at that time. The Complainant maintained that she believed her entitlements were being dealt with by the Respondent and that she reasonably relied on the information provided.

The Complainant further accepted that she became aware, by late 2023 or early 2024, that the long‑term disability benefit was not being paid but stated that she did not appreciate the implications of this at the time. She gave evidence that ongoing illness, lack of clarity, and reliance on employer assurances contributed to her delay in formally pursuing the matter.

Preliminary Objection

The Respondent applied for dismissal of the complaint on the basis that it was statute‑barred. It was submitted that the relevant operative dates were in or before November 2023, when the Complainant was on unpaid sick leave and had been informed that disability benefit was administered by Irish Life rather than directly by the Respondent. The Respondent submitted that the complaint was presented well outside the statutory six‑month time limit and that there was no reasonable cause to justify an extension of time to twelve months. It was submitted that the Complainant had sufficient knowledge of the material facts at the relevant time and that no exceptional circumstances existed to explain the delay.

Ms Sarah Sheerin, HR Business Partner

Ms Sheerin gave evidence on behalf of the Respondent. She stated that she contacted the Complainant by telephone in or around October 2023 while the Complainant was on extended sick leave. The witness explained that the purpose of the call was to check on the Complainant’s wellbeing, confirm her status on sick leave, and discuss the option of a company‑nominated medical review.

There was no further contact from the Complainant until 1 June 2024 when she called regarding her CAI membership fee during this there was no mention of the long term disability benefit. The witness outlined the long‑term disability benefit was administered by Irish Life not the Respondent.

 Ms Sheerin confirmed that no long‑term disability payments commenced and that the Respondent understood the Complainant had chosen to remain on unpaid sick leave.

Submission

It is the Respondent’s submission that there is no entitlement for employees under the Sick Leave Act, 2022 to payment of Long-Term Disability benefit where this was a benefit offered to employees as a benefit through a third-party insurer.

It was the Respondent’s submission that there was no obligation to issue a new contract of employment following the change in the employer’s name. The Respondent submitted that it had fully complied with its obligations under section 5(1)(a) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 (as amended) by notifying employees in writing of the change in advance and again on the date on which the change took effect.

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

CA-00071983-001

The complaint was withdrawn.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946

CA-00071983-002

The complaint was withdrawn.

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

CA-00071983-003

Section 5 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 refers to notification of changes:-

“5.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), whenever a change is made or occurs in any of the particulars of the statement furnished by an employer under section 3, 4 or 6, the employer shall notify the employee in writing of the nature and date of the change as soon as may be thereafter, but not later than—

(a) the day on which the change takes effect, or

(b) where the change is consequent on the employee being required to work outside the State for a period of more than 1 month, the time of the employee’s departure.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a change occurring in provisions of statutes or instruments made under statute, other than a registered employment agreement or employment regulation order,] or of any other laws or of any administrative provisions or collective agreements referred to in the statement given under section 3 or 4.”

It is accepted that when the Respondent rebranded itself that the Complainant was on sick leave and it was reasonable that she was not logging on to her work email account during this period. Therefore, it is accepted missed the announcement on 23 May 2024.

However, applying Section 5 (1) of the Act there is no material change to a term of her contract of employment where the name of the Respondent was a rebranding of the company rather than a change of employer.

For this reason, I find the complaint is not well founded.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Sick Leave Act 2022

CA-00071983-004

Section 5 of the Sick Leave Act 2022 sets out an employee’s entitled to statutory sick leave.

The Complainant went on certified sick leave on 15 May 2023.

The complaint was presented on 29 May 2025 to the Workplace Relations Commission. This falls outside the six‑month statutory time limit prescribed by Section 41 (7) (iii) (h) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015: -

“ in the case of a dispute relating to the entitlement of an employee under the Sick Leave Act 2022, it has been referred to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the day immediately following the date of the occurrence of the dispute”

The date of occurrence would have been 18 May 2023, being the fourth day immediately following the statutory three day entitled expired.    

Considering whether reasonable cause has been shown to extend time to twelve months, while it is accepted that the Complainant was unwell during the relevant period and that communication from the Respondent was limited, illness alone does not automatically constitute reasonable cause. This is particularly the case where the Respondent was in correspondence with her in late 2023.

On the evidence, the Complainant was aware of the material facts giving rise to the complaint at the relevant time and did not demonstrate reasonable cause preventing her from bringing the complaint within time.

For this reason, I find the complaint is not well founded.

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

CA-00071983-001

The complaint was withdrawn.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946

CA-00071983-002

The complaint was withdrawn.

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

CA-00071983-003

The complaint is not well founded.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Sick Leave Act 2022

CA-00071983-004

The complaint is not well founded.