Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Police Officer

A Police Force

Representatives

 Representative Association

Employee Relations Bureau

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 - 00003964

18/03/2025

The Worker has been employed as a Police Officer since 1997. The dispute concerns the Employer’s alleged failure to follow established procedures, as set out in their relevant circulars, in relation to two periods of sick leave for which the Worker claims she should have received injury on duty benefit. It also relates to a delay of almost five years in reaching a decision on one of the alleged injuries on duty, the absence of an appeal process following the refusal of her applications, and a general lack of communication — all of which caused significant stress and uncertainty for the Worker.

In early 2019, a new policing model was proposed for the division where the Worker was based. The Worker learned that her role would be abolished and the associated allowance removed. She met with two senior police officers who assured her there was no cause for concern. Notwithstanding these assurances, uncertainty persisted as a result of which she went on medically certified absence from work due to stress from 17 February 2020 to 27 March 2020 and again from 15 March 2023 to 6 September 2023.

From the initial date of her first absence in February 2020, no investigation was initiated as required by the relevant Employer’s code.

The further uncertainty and the lack of information around her role caused the Worker to report unfit for duty with work related stress on 14 March 2023. She remained unfit for six months up to 6 September 2023 as a result. Further to her return to work, she was transferred to a different station in October 2023.

The Employer had failed to address the work-related stress issues caused to the Worker prior to the decision to transfer her in October 2023. This undue delay caused significant stress and anxiety to the Worker as it resulted in her payroll being stopped and caused uncertainty for her about her future role with the Employer for a prolonged period of time.

On 11 September 2024, the Worker submitted a dispute in relation to how her application to have the period of illness from 17 February 2020 to 27 March 2020 classified as a work related injury was dealt with.

On 17 January 2025, she was informed that her complaint was upheld and it was highlighted that the Employer did not follow their own procedures correctly.

On 27 January 2025, the Worker received correspondence from the HR Directorate wherein she was informed that the period from 17 February 2020 to 27 March 2020 would not be deemed work related stress. The Worker appealed the 27 January 2025 decision but was informed that there was no appeal process available to her. Her representative stated at the hearing that the Employer erred in using English case law to decide that the stress caused to her was not an injury on duty.

The Employer accepted that there was an undue delay in decision-making concerning the absence from 17 February 2020 to 27 March 2020 and acknowledged that the nearly five-year delay was not acceptable. The Employer attributed the delay to a decision by the prior deciding officer to seek medical advice instead of referring the application for injury on duty benefit to the Employer’s Sick Section for onward transmission to the ultimate decision maker. It was also highlighted that the COVID-19 public health emergency was also a subsidiary cause of delay.

The Employer stood over the reasonableness of the decision to classify the periods of sick leave from 17 February – to 27 March 2020 and 15 March – 6 September 2023 as ordinary sick leave on the basis of legal advice they received in 2010 concerning the definition of injury on duty. Part of that advice was to the effect that there were no relevant precedents in Ireland but that some guidance could be had from decisions in the English and Scottish courts concerning the police services of those jurisdictions, where similar injury on duty provisions apply. The English case referred to is Commissioner of Police v Stunt [2001] EWCA Civ 265. Paragraph 17 of that judgment emphasises the need for ‘the existence of a substantial causal connection between the injury and the person's service as a police officer’, as opposed to a situation ‘where the receipt of an injury and service as a police officer were entirely coincidental’. It was asserted by the Employer that this is a commonsense definition and that they were entitled to rely on this legal advice.

The Employer also stated that they cannot reasonably be thought to be under an obligation to provide applicants for injury on duty benefit with a running commentary as to the progress of an injury on duty application, especially as medical reports are an important part of the decision-making process. This is especially so as their policy is quite clear that any payment under the scheme will be retrospective and there could therefore have been no legitimate expectation on the part of the Worker that either of her applications would have been determined during the periods of sickness absence. It was also highlighted that the Worker could have raised a grievance concerning the progress of her applications for injury on duty benefit at any point, but did not do so until 19 July 2024.

The Employer stated that its procedures do not provide for any appeal mechanism in respect of decisions concerning injury on duty benefit. It was highlighted that a process of collective engagement is underway with the Worker’s associations to agree a new sickness absence management policy, which will include an appeal procedure. Notwithstanding the absence of an appeal procedure and having acknowledged the delay in respect of the 2020 absence, the Employer contended that a fair and reasonable process of examination of the applications was carried out.

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

Regarding the delay experienced by the Worker in the assessment of whether her period of sick leave in 2020 should have been classified as injury on duty, I note that the Employer upheld her grievance in an outcome letter of 17 January 2025 and acknowledged that there had been an undue delay in addressing the matter. I agree with this outcome, notwithstanding my view that the Worker should have invoked the grievance procedure in relation to the delay at an earlier stage, rather than waiting until 2024.

In examining whether the Employer’s decision not to classify the Worker’s periods of sick leave in 2020 and 2023 as injury on duty was reasonable, I find—consistent with the recommendation in IR-SC-3099—that the Employer’s reliance on establishing a causal link in determining that the Worker had not suffered an injury was not a reasonable interpretation of their own Code. Notwithstanding this, I accept the submission made by the Employer’s representative at the hearing that the introduction of a new policing model, which was the cause of the Worker’s stress and subsequent sick leave, constituted normal change within the meaning of the public sector pay agreements. Accordingly, despite concerns about the reasoning applied, I find that it was reasonable for the periods of sick leave from 17 February – to 27 March 2020 and from 15 March – 6 September 2023 to be classified as ordinary sick leave rather than injury on duty under the Employer’s Code.

While I note that no appeal process was made available to the Worker in respect of the decision not to classify the aforementioned periods of sick leave as attributable to injury on duty, I also note that this did not constitute a procedural breach, as the Employer’s procedures do not provide for an appeal in such circumstances.