Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A public service worker

A policing authority

Representatives

Worker’s representative association

Employee Relations of the respondent

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 - 00004973

20/08/2025

The worker is claiming compensation under a Code in his sector relating to personal injuries.  The employer stresses that the Code does not allow appeals and that this matter is not appropriate to be dealt with under the Dispute Resolution Procedures.

The dispute concerns the handling of a personal injury application under the relevant regulations covering that sector within the Public Service.

The worker is covered by the Public Service Management (Sick Leave) Regulations 2014. The submission argues that an additional regulation (Code 11.37 ) provides an injury on duty scheme giving full pay during absence where certified. The complainant alleges management failed to follow Code 11.37 and failed to provide the complainant an explanation for this refusal.

The complainant’s injury occurred while performing statutory duties specifically while attempting to preserve life during a welfare check, resulting in a laceration from a pane of glass. The complainant alleges that management failed to follow Code 11.37 and a further Circular in processing the complainant’s personal injury application, and did not provide a Code-compliant explanation for refusal, apart from causation, which is only relevant to wilful default, neglect, or negligence.  The complainant states the application was initially granted and later refused, and argues the matter should have been referred to Executive Director HR&PD if doubt existed. If there is no doubt an injury on duty occurred, the Divisional Officer can classify it as such; if there is doubt, the matter must be referred to the Executive Director HR&PD, who must base the decision on a complete investigation, management views, and the Central Medical Officer’s assessment.

On January 15th, 2025 an internal Inspector (Inspector B) was appointed to investigate the injury on duty, and eight items were highlighted that were to be included in the file but not limited. One such item was a statement from witnesses which are referred to in his report into the injury.  There was reference to a hand injury that occurred and then a head injury that was reported later. 

There is no doubt from Inspector B’s report that the injury was caused by the pane of glass while the complainant was trying to gain access under the powers vested in him by the state and he did not cause the accident and resultant injury. The Inspector declined to make a recommendation due to lack of a Central Medical Officer’s (CMO) report, which is not required at the commencement of the Code 11.37  process. The report is an aid to the process when a doubt exists.

The complainant’s application was granted on March 25th, 2025 by the relevant Managerial representative then on April 30th, 2025 the application was refused by the same manager, citing an apparent lack of a causal link where one clearly existed as the complainant was sent to a call where there was a fear for life and while attempting to gain access a pane of glass fell on him causing injuries which were treated in hospital and acknowledged. However, if doubt existed, the matter should have been referred to the Executive Director HR&PD under Code 11.37  but this did not occur.

The complainant also argues there is no appeal process within Code 11.37  and that this undermines fair procedures. The complainant argues the Disputes Resolution Procedure (DRP) should have applied and that access to the procedure was wrongly refused.  The complainant sought to invoke the DRP to resolve the matter but was told this type of grievance is not amenable to the DRP, and was directed to an email issued by HRM stating same.  The DRP states every member has the right to raise and pursue any grievance, and Section 40 allows grievances about how processes are carried out (e.g., undue delays).  While it is a well-established principle that employees are generally required to exhaust internal dispute resolution procedures before seeking external remedies, this principle presupposes that the employee is actually afforded the opportunity to invoke and utilise those procedures. In the present case, management refused to permit the Complainant to lodge a dispute in accordance with the agreed DRP, thereby denying the Complainant access to the internal mechanisms specifically designed to address procedural issues.

Management is alleged to have breached employment terms by not following agreed procedures and not classifying the illness as a personal injury (Injury on Duty.)

The complainant seeks examination of the alleged failures, correction of records, retrospective rectification of losses and compensation.

On 9 January 2025, while searching in the dark outside a private dwelling with a colleague, a pane of glass was dislodged from a window and struck the worker’s hand, causing a laceration. After attendance at hospital, the worker reported sick later that day. On 31 January, for the first time, the worker reported having been struck on the head. He returned to duty on 25 April 2025.  As is required by the relevant Directive where there is ‘any doubt’, a ‘complete investigation file into the incident’ was produced. The matter was investigated by an Inspector and a report issued on 24 March 2025.  Medical advice was received from Occupational Health on 25 March.

The worker raises two linked issues on his Complaint Form, namely (i) that the employer ‘failed to comply with the procedures … in relation to a personal injury received during the course of duty’ and (ii) that the employer ‘refused to process his grievance under the agreed Disputes[s] Resolution Procedures, notwithstanding that Section 40 expressly provides for grievances to be initiated in relation to how the process is being carried out.’

Code 11.37  requires that non-effectiveness for duty in respect of a ‘personal injury’ (which need not be related to work) must be reported to the Executive Director, People & Development where the period of non-effectiveness exceeds 60 days in any period of 90 days. Although ’11.37’ is used informally to refer to an injury on duty, this section of the Code concerns only a reporting duty for future special pension purposes.

A successful application for injury on duty benefit may lead to an indefinite period of sick pay which does not impinge upon the benefits permitted by the Public Service Management (Sick Leave) Regulations 2014 (which apply throughout the public service) and, moreover, for sick pay to be paid inclusive of unsocial hours premia.

‘Wilful default or negligence’ is not a factor in the present case, which was certified by the appropriate Manager on 25 March 2025. However, the absence of ‘wilful default or negligence’ is a necessary but not sufficient condition for entitlement to injury on duty benefit, as the period of absence must nevertheless be causally attributed to injury on duty. (The attention of the Adjudication Officer is drawn to the distinction between ‘personal injury’ and ‘injury on duty’, which are not synonymous.)  Moreover, the employer takes the view that an injury to a member is not necessarily an ‘injury on duty’ merely because it occurs in the workplace or during working time. Injury on duty benefit is retrospective in nature and the presumption is that, as per the HQ Directive, ‘the member’s absence will be treated as ordinary illness pending a decision on the classification of the injury and in particular the CMO’s advice’.

Having reviewed the file, on 6 May 2025, the appropriate Manager determined that she ‘did not have sufficient evidence to establish a specific causal relationship between the period of absence and the injury alleged’‘ and therefore declined to certify the absence as having been caused by an injury on duty.

On 16 July 2025, the worker sought to use the internal grievance procedure (‘Disputes Resolution Procedures’ or DRP) to further the dispute. It is the consistent position of the employer that grievances concerning injury on duty benefit are not proper to the DRP. The worker was advised of this on the following day.

On 6 December 2025, the Chief Superintendent referred the matter of injury on duty to the Executive Director, People & Development, as per the Directive. The Executive Director has not yet reached a decision.

The present position is, simply, that the Chief Superintendent has ‘a doubt as to whether the member’s sickness is due to ordinary illness or an injury on duty’. (She does not have a doubt regarding ‘wilful default or negligence’, as was previously referred to). The doubt concerns whether the absence was ‘due’ to an injury on duty (ie causation).

As set out in the HQ Directive, the Executive Director will in due course make a decision based on the investigation file, the views of local management and medical advice. No procedural breach has occurred.

The DRP is a collective agreement, to which the parties are the employer and the representative associations (and not the worker or any other individual).   As stated previously, the employer position is that the terms of the DRP do not encompass grievances concerning injury on duty decisions. The worker’s association has not contested this position in collective bargaining channels and it is submitted that the interpretation of a collective agreement should be determined through such processes and not by third-party consideration of an individual dispute. 

The injury on duty scheme has a statutory basis and while it may appear unusual that no appeal procedure exists therein, it is simply the case that no such procedure is provided for in the Code and Directive, which form both part of the binding ‘contract’ between the employer and worker and of the collectively applicable procedures in the undertaking. Collective consideration of a new scheme, which would provide for an appeal step, is at an advanced stage.

No breach of the Disputes Resolution Procedures has occurred.

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

The dispute in this instance relates to the worker’s complaint that Code 11.37 was not applied correctly, that there is no appeal provided for under that code and, that the worker should have been permitted to use the Disputes Resolution Procedure to address his complaint. 

Code 11.37 and lack of appeal.

There is no dispute between the parties that the Code 11.37 does not include provision for an appeal. The fact that consideration is at an advanced stage to the provision of an appeal process is indicative of a realisation that this is a deficiency in the current scheme.  However, it is the position of the employer that, as no provision is specifically made for an appeal, no appeal can be made.  This is a rigid interpretation of the current scheme, notwithstanding the fact that the absence of such a provision has been recognised as a deficiency.  Where one party insists on a rigid interpretation of a particular clause in any scheme they must also recognise that other clauses in a scheme may be subject to the same rigour.  In this regard, I note that it is the worker’s position that the Code does not permit the appropriate Manager to refuse an application but rather, if doubt exists, the matter should be referred to the Executive Director HR&PD.  The incident where the alleged injuries were received took place in January 2025 and was addressed by the appropriate Manager in March and again in April. The worker alleges that the manager’s refusal of the application was outside of the provisions of the scheme which make no such provision. No referral was made to the Executive Director HR until December 2025 some 6 months after the Manager had raised his/her doubts.  This is an unacceptable delay.  As of the date of the hearing on 12th May 2026, some 17 months after the injury was sustained, there was still no outcome of this referral.  This again is an unacceptable delay.

Use of the Disputes Resolution Procedure.(DRP)

The purpose of dispute resolution procedures is to provide a safety valve where contentious workplace issues arise and to remove any such issues from the point of production to enable them to be processed in a safe environment.  The absence, or inadequacy of any such procedure can have a demotivating effect on workers.  Refusing access to such a procedure can mean the issue festers with the resulting demotivation and negative implications for the commitment of the employee to the organisation. In this instance it is the employer position that the terms of the DRP do not encompass grievances concerning injury on duty decisions.

Section 39 of the DRP lists issues appropriate to be considered under the scheme and does not include any reference to Code 11.37 specifically.  The same section states;

These Procedures do not apply to matters arising in specific arenas where (the employer) has in place significant policies and procedures for the appropriate management of certain employee issues that may arise from time to time. They are:

·        Discipline Regulations,

·        Bullying, Harassment and Sexual Harassment Procedures,

·        Rostering and Working Time Agreements, 

·        Performance appraisal (except for complaints in the context of the

·        Performance Accountability and Learning Framework Agreement (PALF), and

·        Promotions, lateral appointments and any consequent appeals which are subject to the Code of Practice of the Commission for Public Service Appointments.

Section 40 states;. However, parties to matters being dealt with under these Procedures and Processes may initiate grievances in relation to how the process is being carried out (e.g. undue delays etc.). 

Complaints about Code 11.37 are not specifically included nor excluded in the DRP. In these circumstances, and in the absence of an alternative process to deal with the undue delay in applying the Code and possible infractions of the same Code I conclude that the worker should have been entitled to process at least the issue of the delay and alleged infractions of the Code under the DRP.

At the time of the hearing the employer had not reached a definitive conclusion in relation to the worker’s entitlements under Code 11.37.  It would be inappropriate for me to anticipate what that conclusion might be and therefore my considerations are confined to the process as it has been applied to the worker.   I find that the deficiencies in the application of the Code have resulted in an undue delay in addressing his application under the Code and he should be compensated.  Pending the conclusion of the drafting of the Appeal Process for issues arising under the Code I recommend that the DRP be used for issues regarding the delay in implementing the Code and any alleged infractions of the code.

Personal injury scheme, absence of appeal mechanism, use of Dispute Resolution Procedures