Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

An Operator

A Business

Representatives

Diarmuid Long SIPTU

Sophie Crosbie IBEC

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 - 00004991

22/08/2025

On 22 August 2025, SIPTU raised a claim under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 as a challenge on an unfair disciplinary action, verbal warning arising from sick leave.

IBEC represented the Employer, a large manufacturing business rejected the claim.

Both Parties attended for hearing on 9 March 2026, both filed comprehensive submissions.

The Union, on behalf of the Worker sought that the disciplinary sanction of verbal warning applied on June 25, 2025, be rescinded and expunged in addition to compensation for distress.

The Union contended the warning was unfair, disproportionate, and breached the company’s own policies.

The Worker has been loyal to the business and wishes to anchor her future there, but she is troubled by the management of her sick leave.

The worker complied with the Policy requirement on Medical Certification / Absence Policy when she submitted medical certificates in testament of her illnesses and absence.

Mr Long outlined that by sticking to the 3.5% absence trigger and applying it to the worker, they ignored the more expansive “qualitative analysis that the policy mandates “on trends, case by case basis, and reliance on circumstances.

The Union was at odds with the Company on the methodology surrounding their analysis of the workers absence rate.

The Union contended that a verbal warning was excessive and application of a verbal warning disproportionate. They would have preferred a lighter touch such as wellness checks of referral to Occupational Health.

The Worker contended that she was not supported through illness by her employer. She currently fears further disciplinary action if she falls ill, which defeats the spirit of the sick leave scheme first day.

The Union outlined that the worker had complied with the rules surrounding sick leave and should not have been punished for being ill.

The verbal warning was unjust and has caused distress warranting compensation.

The Union countered that the verbal warning should be rescinded and expunged, fair compensation should be awarded for distress and unfair treatment.

The Disciplinary Policy should not be activated in the case of genuine certified sick leave.

ADJ 48825      Sick Leave Act 2022

IR SC 2237      Industrial Relations Act 1969

The Employer, represented by IBEC is a large employer in the manufacturing sector.

The Employer accepts that the worker has been employed as a production operator from 17 October 2022. During this period, she transitioned across from a separate employer.

Ms Crosbie, for the Employer outlined the genesis of sick pay and absence policy from October 1, 2024.

The workers sick leave record served as an area of extreme concern for the company, who had a genuine belief that this warranted corrective action through the disciplinary procedure.

1 In the three years prior to the application of the verbal warning in June 2025, the worker carried an average absence level of 8%.

2 In the 12 months prior to the verbal warning, this escalated to 14%.

The Company absorbed a 3.5% absence rate, which placed the worker into a zone of scrutiny and marked it unsustainable.

The chronology in the case centred on 26 February 2025, when the worker was notified that her levels of absence had triggered scrutiny and concern. There were 10 periods of absence, which the worker attempted to justify in the category of “due to a number of unforeseen issues “.

The Company issued a counselling letter and indicated that a failure to improve would hasten a disciplinary action.

The Worker did not improve and between March 11, 2025, and 11 June 2025, a further 11-day absence was recorded.

The workers absence record was wholly unacceptable in deviation from the average of 3.5% and a notable deterioration following the Counselling letter of February 2025.

The Employer hosted a disciplinary meeting on 18 June 2025, where the worker was represented and presented with data on her absence.

The Worker confirmed she understood the process, but argued she was being placed under pressure to attend work during medically validated illness.

The Worker was issued with a verbal warning on 25 June 2025, of six months duration. The Employer sought to explain that the resultant absences through illness “were placing pressures on her colleagues and the business operations “. Supports were offered.

The warning is now spent.

The Worker appealed the sanction on 24 July 2025.

The grounds for appeal were set out as proportionality, penalised for illness not in her control and felt unsupported at the business.

The Employer heard that the worker understood that a medical certificate protected her in illness, and she denied breach of the company timekeeping and attendance policy.

The Employer upheld the sanction of verbal warning in response to the alarming and escalating absence rate over a 3- and 12-month period.

Reliant on the Absence Management Policy, the Employer pointed to the steps contained within this policy when sick leave strays outside certain parameters.

1 discretionary removal; from sick pay scheme

2 investigations into causes of poor attendance may lead to disciplinary action.

3 Assessment with Occupational Health Department

The Leader is delegated authority to manage sick leave.

Ms Crosbie outlined that the worker had consistently strayed outside the 3.5% absence rate within the attendance policy. A verbal warning was the basic minimum sanction open to the employer. who was struggling with the workers obvious lack of appreciation of the detrimental effect her expansive sick leave was causing at the business.

She contended that the Adjudicator must maintain an oversight rather than participatory role in any dispute, citing A Personal Assistant v a Trade Union ADJ 30334.

The role must focus on whether the Company “acted fairly in its dealings with the Worker “

The Employer had a genuine concern at the enduring depth of the worker’s sick leave. They acted fairly and proportionately in line with the company’s own procedures and SI 146/2000.

IBEC sought that the claim be dismissed.

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

Both parties were strident in their submissions in this case. Both Parties carried a palpable incredulity surrounding events in the case.

I can assure the parties that I have no intention of intervening in daily operations at this business, and I accept the employers stated desire that I desist from this practice.

I have been requested to investigate a dispute under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and if possible, to make a Recommendation on navigating a way forward in this live employment.

Primarily, I must consider if any unfairness or unreasonableness has occurred.?

Sick leave is a workplace occurrence, be it episodic, repetitive, or enduring, it is a point of contention in all workplaces.

For the worker, it can be a worrying time to return to equilibrium and equally to manage financially. For an employer, particularly, in manufacturing it is also a worrying time seeking to replace a skilled worker in chasing targets for product completion.

I note that the worker was hired to “support critical business needs “in the first instance. I was assured she now holds a contract of indefinite duration .

Policies and their correct application are a key tool to managing sick leave. I am slow to enter an analysis on the parameters of the 3.5% median in sick leave.

In this case, the Employer relied on two well worded Policies surrounding a very generous sick pay system of 40 paid days, post 3 years’ service.

However, these Policies were unveiled on October 1, 2024.

What troubled me the most in this case was the level of incredulity expressed by the worker at how she was managed within an escalating sick leave record?

I found it difficult to accept that level of incredulity in a fast-paced manufacturing environment was reasonable. This prompted me to look into the amount of line manager intervention which prefaced the issuing of the documented counselling letter on 26 February 2025. I learned there was a vacancy in this key role at this time and find that the period of time that followed the issuing of both.

Sick pay policy

Absence and Time Keeping policy.

From October 1, 2024, I would have expected the worker to have developed a much more incisive insight into the risks of a spiralling sick leave record. I would have expected a line manager to set out those risks .

There was no sign of this, and the worker presented with an elevated level of denial on this topic.

I find the absence of the line manager at this critical bedding down period for these policies was key.

My attention was drawn to the documented counselling letter, which I found to be an imposed rather than participatory document. Counselling is a participative process and has as its objective a non-judgemental approach, with room to develop coping strategies. Nothing grew from this process outside of the sick leave record between February 2025 and the date of the investigative report of 11 June 2025.

I found the Investigation report concluded a very narrow finding of 14.26% absence rate between 11 June 2024 and 11 June 2025. The Policies were launched on October 1, 2024, yet no weighting was given to that.

I note that the 3-month absence from 11 March 2025 to 11 June 2025 was marked at 20.43%, which is truly an extremely high and concerning record.

However, the investigation did not capture the workers response to the allegations of:

Operator has exceeded the allowed absence level of 3.5% in any 3 month /12 month /3-year period.

I found that to be unfair and was not cured in the subsequent Disciplinary procedure or on Appeal.

I find that the investigation and disciplinary procedure should have been conducted by separate practitioners to enshrine the codes of independence and impartiality.

I find the worker should have been heard at Counselling and Investigation stage and she was not. These omissions may constitute “teething problems “as new policies unfolded, but the omissions were unfair and overly individualised to the worker.

For me, this renders a verbal warning premature and unfair, and I agree it should be rescinded.

That is not to say that the employers’ concerns about the high rate of episodic sick leave should be erased, they should not.

There is no basis for compensation to be awarded here. The Worker was paid for sick leave and by her own admission did not lose out on service pay.

Instead, I find there is some merit to this Dispute.

I recommend that the Parties meet to assess the workers sick leave record since the evolution of the Policies in October 2024 within 4 weeks of the date of this Recommendation.

The sole objective for this meeting is to explore the reasons for the workers illness and for her to reflect on the negative her episodic absences caused at the business.

This should trigger a shared focus on any ideas either party may have on options for managing paid sick leave via a line manager in the first instance, through options such as:

Flexibility in work pattern

Redeployment

Career break

Occupational Health referral, joint or separate.

The verbal warning of 25 June 2025, while now extinct, should be removed from the worker’s file.

Disciplinary sanction in respect of escalating sick leave