Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

An Employee

An Employer

Representatives

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 - 00004203

29/04/2025

The Worker referred his dispute to the Workplace Relations Commission (“the WRC”) on the 29th April 2025.

The Worker underwent a routine cardiac investigation on the 21st November 2023 as part of an ongoing monitoring programme relating to his blood pressure. The investigation involved the use of an ambulatory monitoring device which recorded readings over a 24-hour period. The Worker was issued with medical certification and submitted this to the Employer.

The Worker attempted to return to work on the 24th November 2023. However, having regard to the safety-critical nature of the Worker’s role, the Employer referred the medical certification to the Chief Medical Officer (“the CMO”). The CMO subsequently advised that the Worker should not resume duties pending completion of cardiac investigations and placed a hold on his fitness to work. The Worker was required to await clearance from the CMO before returning to duty.

The Worker submits that he was unfairly and unreasonably disadvantaged by the Employer’s handling of his absence following a routine medical appointment on the 21st November 2023 and continuing until his return to work on the 25th November 2024.

He states that he complied fully with all requirements placed upon him during this period by submitting medical certificates and engaging with management when he sought clarity regarding his position and potential return to work. He submits that following his referral to the CMO in November 2023, no timely medical assessment was arranged, leaving him in a prolonged state of uncertainty.

The Worker contends that he was willing to return to work if medically cleared by the CMO and that the Employer’s failure to progress a medical assessment meant that he remained out of work unnecessarily. He further submits that when the CMO ultimately indicated in September 2024 that he could return to work subject to GP certification, this information was not communicated to him, further delaying his return until November 2024.

The Worker furnished a table setting out his claimed loss of earnings arising from this delay and submits that, while the precise return date cannot be fixed with certainty, he suffered a significant and avoidable financial loss as a result of the Employer’s failure to properly manage the process. He seeks compensation to reflect the loss and detriment suffered.

The Employer submits that the Worker was absent on certified sick leave during the period in question and that illness benefit was paid strictly in accordance with the Employer’s welfare scheme, up to the maximum period provided for under that scheme.

The Employer states that upon receipt of medical certification in November 2023, the matter was referred to the CMO in line with normal practice and that fitness to return to work was at all times dependent on medical advice. It submits that there is no contractual or statutory entitlement to payment beyond the limits of the applicable welfare scheme.

The Employer accepts that a communication from the CMO dated the 11th September 2024, indicating that the Worker could resume duty subject to certification from his own GP, was not relayed to the Worker at that time. However, it submits that this was an administrative oversight and that it cannot be assumed that the Worker would have returned to work earlier, as he remained on medical certification.

The Employer accepts that internal procedures were exhausted and that the matter is properly before the Adjudication Officer under the Industrial Relations Acts. It submits that it acted in good faith throughout and that no additional payment is warranted.

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

I am satisfied that the Employer acted reasonably and prudently in initially referring the Worker’s medical certification to the CMO, having regard to the safety-critical nature of the Worker’s role and the reference to cardiac investigation. However, I find that the failure thereafter to progress the medical assessment process within a reasonable timeframe is the central issue in this dispute.

I accept that there may have been some initial delay in progressing a medical assessment following the referral to the CMO in late November 2023, having regard to the timing of that referral.

However, I am satisfied that by the beginning of January 2024, any reasonable allowance for administrative delay had elapsed. From that point onwards, the Employer ought to have taken active and timely steps to arrange a medical assessment in order to determine whether the Worker was fit to return to work.

The evidence shows that no assessment by the CMO took place between January and August 2024. During that period, the Worker remained out of work not because he had been medically assessed and found unfit, but because the assessment process was not progressed. I am satisfied that this failure cannot be attributed to the Worker.

I further find that when medical clearance was provided by the CMO in September 2024, indicating that the Worker could resume duty subject to GP certification, this information was not communicated to the Worker, further delaying his return to work until November 2024.

I have taken account of the table of loss of earnings furnished by the Worker and the evidence supporting same.

I also note that the Worker pursued the matter through the Employer’s internal appeal procedures. The outcome of that appeal acknowledged concerns regarding the handling of the Worker’s medical assessment process. While I have reached my conclusions independently and based on all of the evidence before me, I consider that the appeal outcome provides additional context supporting the conclusion that the Worker’s absence was not progressed in a timely or effective manner.

Accordingly, while I accept that the precise date on which the Worker might otherwise have returned to work cannot be established with certainty, I am satisfied that the Employer’s failure to arrange a timely medical assessment and to communicate medical clearance resulted in the Worker being kept out of work unnecessarily from the 1st January 2024 until his return to work on the 25th November 2024, and that this caused him a real and avoidable financial loss.

Taken together, I find that the Employer’s handling of the Worker’s medical absence during this period was unreasonable from an industrial relations perspective.