LCR23310

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No.: ADJ-00053439 (CA-00065175, IR-SC-00002948)

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 18th March 2025 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

On 18th February 2025 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:

“Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

I have carefully considered the case made by the worker; however, it must be understood the process before me is a trade dispute and it is about recognising the interests of both parties to the dispute.

The internal investigation recommended a transfer. In the exceptional circumstances of this case and that it cannot be used to establish any precedent for any other worker and the conclusion of the internal investigation that a transfer should be facilitated, I strongly recommend and best endeavours to be applied that a transfer to an area in the Munster area is facilitated such as Cork County.

In addition to a transfer, it is also recommended a payment of €5000 for the ill-judged remarks as noted in the internal report to be paid to the worker. This an amount not to be linked to any one specific head of loss and is solely linked to the conclusion in the internal report concerning remarks that were ill judged.

The acceptance by both sides of this recommendation to be formally signed as a full and final Settlement of all matters related to the grievance’’

A Labour Court hearing took place on 12th June 2026.

RECOMMENDATION:

This matter before the Court is an appeal of a Recommendation of an Adjudication under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. Both parties appealed the recommendation.

Summary of Worker’s case:

In October 2023, the Worker’s residence and family business were badly damaged by flooding. Her request for emergency leave was denied due to staffing constraints at the time. After reporting for duty, a Superintendent made dismissive and inappropriate remarks to her about the flooding and her personal life, culminating in a humiliating act involving a life buoy, which left her distressed and shaken. No disciplinary action was taken against the Superintendent. On 15 November 2023, the Worker reported sick with work-related stress, after she suffered an anxiety attack while recounting the incident. She required hospital care and ongoing treatment.

On 1 December 2023 the Worker sought to have her absence classified under Garda Code 11.37 (injury in the course of duty). On 6 December 2024, she was informed her application was denied. There was no formal process to challenge that decision. The Worker lodged the following complaints: -

Failure of the Divisional Officer to certify illness on duty correctly and failure to comply with Garda Code 11.37 process.

The Divisional Officer for Waterford bore responsibility for determining whether the Worker should be certified as injury on duty. Instead, on 1 December 2023, an Assistant Principal directed that certification under 11.37 could not be granted in the circumstances and that the file be referred to HRPD. Instead of initiating the mandated 11.37 injury-on-duty investigation, the subsequent inquiry was limited to an investigation into “workplace stress”. In summary, the Divisional Officer failed in his statutory duty by not making the required decision on culpability, wrongly ceding his authority to HR based on an unlawful policy.

A complaint about the actions of the Superintendent

The Superintendent’s actions in October 2023 breached multiple provisions of the Garda Code of Ethics, yet no investigation was initiated under the Garda Síochána (Discipline) Regulations 2007. When the Worker lodged a formal complaint under the Garda Dispute Resolution Procedures, the deliberate and humiliating nature of the Superintendent’s behaviour was not addressed. The outcome of that process was that the Superintendent’s actions were dismissed the actions as “ill-judged comments” and an insincere apology, which never occurred, accepted. The Superintendent’s actions had a significant impact on her health and wellbeing and set a damaging precedent that unethical conduct towards colleagues will be tolerated.

The delay in processing the Worker’s application for injury on duty.

On 1 December 2023, the Worker formally applied to have her illness reclassified as “injury on duty”. Over a year later, on 6 December 2024, the Acting Executive Director, HRPD formally ruled that Garda Code 11.37 would not apply. That decision was fundamentally flawed as it misapplied relevant law and relied on factually incorrect information. The Worker sought to appeal the decision. While not codified in a formal procedure, the appeal process is clearly established through directives. No appeal was allowed.

The Worker’s case illustrates a systemic failure by the Employer to uphold its own Code, binding judicial precedent, and basic principles of fairness and duty of care. The Worker requests the Court to recommend that (i) the process was procedurally unfair and the decision of 6 December 2024 manifestly irrational, (ii) her absence from 15 November 2023 to 29 July 2024 be classified as Injury on Duty under Code 11.37, with all benefits applied retrospectively, and (iii) appropriate compensation for the financial loss, emotional distress, and failure of management to address serious misconduct by a senior officer.

Summary of Management’s case:

The classification of an absence as injury on duty is ultimately a management decision rather than a medical one. The Divisional Officer in this case decided that he was not fully satisfied that an injury on duty occurred and appropriately referred the matters onwards. A direction from Garda HR deems that a doubt regarding injury on duty classification should exist in every case of alleged work-related stress. No issues with this have been raised by the Worker’s representative association in a collective forum. The report conducted into workplace stress constituted the “complete investigation file” as required.  It is quite routine that such reports are used and would be absurd to insist that two separate investigations be conducted into the Worker’s work-related stress.

On 16 October 2024, the CMO advised that she could not conclude from a medical perspective that the Worker’s absence was casually attributable to the workplace interactions on 18 and 19 October 2023.  On 6 December 2024, the Acting Executive Director, HRPD made her final recommendation that the period of absence should remain classified as ordinary illness. The seven-week period between the receipt of medical advice and the Executive Director’s decision was not unreasonable.

Management contends that it has behaved reasonably in this difficult matter. Management conducted a serious and thorough process in relation to the Worker’s application for injury on duty benefit. The procedures used conform to generally accepted standard of fairness and objectivity. The decision to refuse injury on duty benefit in respect of a period of work-related stress said to have been caused by the foolish jokes of a manager a month before her sickness absence was well within a band of reasonableness.

While there is no formally agreed appeal process in place to challenge the decision, collective discussions regarding the application of sick pay and injury on duty, including discussions on an appeal or review process for 11.37 applications, are ongoing for some time with a view to concluding a collective agreement.

The dispute should have been considered substantially resolved by the transfer of the Worker to Cork. A recommendation for financial compensation is not warranted, either in respect of its handling of the employment matters or for the foolish jokes of the Superintendent. Management seeks a recommendation that the worker accept that her application for injury on duty benefit in respect of the period was unsuccessful and that the matter is closed.

Recommendation

The Court has given careful consideration to the oral and written submissions of both parties.

The matter before the Court concerns interrelated disputes. Firstly, the Worker contends that Management breached mandatory processes as the Divisional Officer failed to issue a Garda Code 11.37 certificate. The Worker further contends that Management mishandled her application to be classified as injury on duty and in doing so denied her fair procedures in a timely manner. Finally, the Worker is dissatisfied with the way Management addressed, or in her view failed to address, the Superintendent’s inappropriate comments and conduct in the workplace in October 2023.

The Court is conscious that its role in disputes such as these is to make a recommendation that can assist the parties - where it can do so - bring a resolution to matters in dispute. As advised to the parties, in industrial relations case, there are no matters of law arising.

To resolve this dispute, the Worker seeks the following recommendations from the Court:

(i) The Worker seeks her absence from 15 November 2023 to 29 July 2024 be classified as Injury on Duty under Code 11.37, with all benefits applied retrospectively

Such a recommendation would entail a finding by the Labour Court that there was an injury on duty in this case. The Labour Court has consistently held that it is not its role to insert itself into the decision-making role of an employer. To do so would require the Court to substitute its own judgment on the merits of the decision made on 6 December 2024, when the Worker’s application was denied. That is not the function of the Court in appeals of this nature. For these reasons, the Court cannot recommend in favour of the Worker.

(ii) The Worker seeks that the Court recommend that the application process was procedurally unfair and that the decision of 6 December 2024 manifestly irrational.

The Worker’s representative raised several issues in relation to Management’s rejection of the Worker’s application to have her absence classified as an injury on duty. He submits that the process utilised was inconsistent with Garda procedures and established judicial standards. The Court was provided with extensive submissions on the application and interpretation of Garda Code 11:37 and related Directives. When considering this matter, it was of some concern to the Court that the parties outline different perspectives and understanding of those procedures.

The Court heard that there is no agreed appeal mechanism and therefore no option to review a decision once it is made in relation to an application to classify an absence an injury on duty. The parties acknowledge that the fact that no mechanism exists to appeal such a decision is a collective matter for negotiation between the parties. The Court notes that collective engagement on that matter is ongoing. It is not within the Courts to step outside agreed processes and procedures or to provide an interim appeal mechanism collective negotiation between the parties. For the reasons above, the Court cannot recommend in favour of the Worker.

(iii) The Worker seeks appropriate compensation for financial loss, emotional distress, and failure of management to address serious misconduct by a senior officer.

The Worker is dissatisfied with the way Management addressed, or failed to address, the Superintendent’s behaviour and ill-judged comments towards her. While the Worker may feel aggrieved and disappointed that Management did not initiate an investigation under the Garda Síochána (Discipline) Regulations 2007, any disciplinary investigation or action arising on foot of a worker making a complaint about another colleague is a separate matter for the employer to progress in relation to that colleague. The only matters properly before the Court in this appeal relate to the Worker’s grievances about her treatment by her employer.

In this case, the Court is satisfied that the Worker had the full benefit of the grievance procedure to progress her complaint. The Court notes that as an outcome of that process, the Worker has transferred to another work location in the Munster area. The Court concurs with the Adjudication Officer that the parties need to move on with their working lives. It is not the practice of the Court to recommend compensation payments for emotional distress.  The Court does not think it appropriate to recommend a compensation award in this case.

Noting all the above, the Court recommends that the parties accept the matter to be closed.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
JNF	______________________
17/07/2026	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be in writing and addressed to Ms. Julie Nicholl-Flood, Court Secretary.