Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Police Officer

A Police Force

Representatives

Garda Representative Association

 Employee Relations

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 - 00004496

16/06/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00004497

16/06/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00004498

16/06/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00004499

16/06/2025

The worker has detailed their dispute as follows:

1.       In October 2020, I was on ordinary illness leave following a serious operation. I returned to duty in January 2021 on Chief Medical Officer (CMO)-directed modified hours.

2.       On 15 November 2021, I attended a scheduled consultation with the CMO. During this consultation, I outlined a number of issues I was experiencing in the workplace that were contributing to significant stress. The CMO recommended that senior management engage with me to address these concerns.

3.       Subsequently, on 13 January 2022, I met with an Inspector and again detailed the specific workplace issues and their causes. The Inspector prepared a report outlining these concerns and forwarded it to senior management and the CMO.

4.       On 7 February 2022, I attended a follow-up consultation with the CMO. I informed him that, despite the Inspector’s report, no member of senior management had contacted me and the workplace issues remained unaddressed. The CMO deemed me unfit for work, advised that I attend my GP, and supported the recommendations in the Inspector’s report, including that my case be reviewed due to concerns for my welfare. I was certified unfit for duty and was out sick from 7 February 2022 to 26 April 2022.

5.       During this period, I was contacted by the Chief Superintendent in relation to the workplace issues. In order to facilitate my return to work, we reached agreement that I would be transferred to another station and assigned to the incident room. As a result, I resumed duty on 26 April 2022.

6.       In August 2022, I was informed of a significant overpayment in my wages on the basis that I had exceeded my ordinary sick leave quota. I was advised that I would be required to repay this amount.

7.       On 19 August 2022, I wrote to the Chief Superintendent seeking clarification on the status of my application for my sick leave from 7 February to 26 April 2022 to be classified as an injury on duty under Garda Code 11.37, as the leave was necessitated by work-related stress.

8.       On 6 October 2022, I received a response from the Chief Superintendent stating that my application did not meet the threshold for classification as an injury on duty, but that I could appeal the decision.

9.       I submitted my written appeal on 24 October 2022. Despite submitting multiple requests for an update, I received no further response.

10.   My complaint relates to the following issues: Failure to Follow Proper Procedure

11.   My application for injury on duty was not processed in accordance with Garda Code 11.37 or the principles established in the Deming GAO High Court judgment. Under the Code, a Chief Superintendent does not have the authority to refuse an application outright. Where there is doubt, or where wilful neglect or negligence is suspected, the application must be referred to the Executive Director of HRPD for determination. In my case, no such referral occurred, and no investigation was conducted into the work-related stress.

The Employer stated that that an occupational injury such as a slip or fall does not entitle a member to benefit under the injury while on duty scheme. That benefit is intended where a member is injured arising from law enforcement duties not injuries unrelated to law enforcement. In this case the member alleges that arising form work related stress that injury should be reclassified as an injury while on duty. That is self evidently not the case and the reclassification was rejected based on the self-evident facts that it was not an injury that was sustained while on duty as normally understood.

The stress that was experienced was directly linked to the workplace and the worker was examined by occupational health who assessed her illness as work related.

The scheme is not intended for occupational injury such as a slip or a fall in the office but only for injuries that arise during law enforcement when an officer is on duty.

The benefit scheme if classed as an injury while on duty provides a higher level of benefit and does not impact normal sick pay benefit. The worker estimates that her loss is the order of €4500 when the actual loss of the higher benefit is €2300 and the accrual of sick benefit under the normal rules means no benefit can arise once a certain number of sick days are taken. This led to a further loss of about €2200.

The issue in dispute is the right by the Chief Superintendent to decide to reject the claim, where the claim has not been referred to the executive director. This claim may have been rejected as not meeting the criteria of the injury benefit while on duty. However, the assessment of the claim where stress theoretically or trauma related injury could have occurred arising from an incident while on duty meant that the claim was not assessed as required under the policy.  The assessment or process is a deficiency in this matter. The substance of the claim is entirely different. Without establishing  any precedent to other disputes and without prejudice to the merits of classifying this injury as occurring while on duty, I find that the assessment of the claim should have been referred to the executive director. That is a procedural flaw and in no way is deciding if the worker’s claim had merit. Allowing for this procedural flaw in how the claim was assessed I award €2000 in compensation as full and final settlement of all matters referred under this dispute.

Injury benefit on duty