ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00003978
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Worker | A Health Sector Employer |
Representatives | Martina Weir SIPTU | Internal HR |
Dispute(s):
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 - 00003978 | 20/03/2025 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Date of Hearing: 27/01/2026
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended) following the referral of the dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute(s).
Background:
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The worker is pursuing a loss of sick pay that started on 13 March 2023 and continued until early 2025. He was the subject of an investigation under the Disciplinary Procedure and was suspended from the Sick Pay scheme pending the conclusion of the investigation. The investigation concluded on 3 May 2024, and the subsequent notice remained on his file for 6 months. This notice expired in November 2024, but management failed to reinstate him onto the Sick Pay scheme. He lodged a grievance and exhausted internal procedures but was not reinstated to the Scheme. The worker submitted that there was no basis for his continuous exclusion from the scheme. The worker is seeking to be reinstated retrospectively and is seeking compensation for what he termed ‘blatant abuse’ by the employer’s management. This includes returning some annual leave accrued to the worker and monetary compensation. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The employer’s case is that the complainant’s exclusion from the scheme was temporary and that once he satisfied the necessary conditions the worker was reinstated onto the Sick Leave scheme. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. The employer submitted that the worker was informed that he suspended from the sick leave scheme due to allegations of fraudulent use of the sick pay scheme and that pending the investigation of this, he was suspended from the scheme. The letter outlined nine allegations against the worker, including persistent failure to adhere to the policy and procedures regarding notification of sick leave and of the submissions of medical certificates. It took a year to the complaint and when the outcome was provided most of the allegations, including the fraudulent use of the sick pay scheme were not upheld. The investigation was downgraded to a level 2 disciplinary complaint. This was noted and placed on his file for 6 months. The worker was never informed of the conditions that he had to meet to be reinstated to the sick pay scheme. The serious allegations that formed the basis of the original complaint were not mentioned in the outcome of the investigation, leading to the conclusion that those allegations were unfounded. The worker did not contest the fact that he did not comply with the sick leave procedures regarding notification of absence and the forwarding of medical certificate covering absences. However, the respondent noted that there were fifteen incidences mentioned on the workers file, these spanned almost eight years. The employer noted that the worker had excessive sick leave but did not provide a definition of excessive sick leave noting that each is dealt with on a case-by-case basis regarding the number and duration of absences. The absence of any guidelines regarding what is considered to amount to ‘excessive’ sick leave does not provide any certainty to either employees or to the management in terms of defining what amounts to excessive sick leave. Although the worker was informed that his exclusion from the sick leave scheme was temporary, this exclusion lasted almost two years. It transpired that the 1st stage grievance was investigated by the person who took the actions being complained about. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I recommend that a worker who has been suspended from the sick leave should be informed what conditions need to be met to be reinstated onto the scheme.
Where Management is taking an action of a ‘temporary’ nature, review dates should be provided in relation to the action being taken. Formal reviews should take place in line with the temporary nature of a suspension.
Workers should follow the procedures regarding notification of absence and for the provision of medical certificates or otherwise ensure their attendance in work in accordance with their agreed working hours.
The decision to withhold a worker’s entitlement to sick leave pay should be based on clear documentary evidence following an investigation, rather that being based upon unsubstantiated allegations.
Grievances should be heard by an independent person who was not involved in the original decision being complained of.
The employer should pay the worker compensation of €1000 in respect of the omissions and errors in the operation of the disciplinary investigation and subsequent consideration of his grievances.
Dated: 30-01-26
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Industrial Relations Act – dispute regarding sick leave scheme – temporary suspension without adequate reason or timeframe – award of compensation |