ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00063792

Parties:

Complaint:

Date of Adjudication Hearing:  22/04/2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

Background:

The Complainant contends there was an unlawful deduction for wages when the Respondent failed to report a workplace accident which resulted in a loss of wages.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant gave written and sworn oral evidence summarised as follows:

The incident leading to this case, initiated on 29th May 2024.

The Complainant gave detailed account of what happened on the day.

He was contacted to come into work early via a text message from his manager Craig Smith (CS) due to cover issues. This was at approx 10:30. He arrived and began work at approx 11:30. At approx 18:20, while conducting his work tasks, he was stepping out of VNA (work equipment). He was stepping out backwards, as is the correct method that is advised under safety guidance. While stepping down, he felt something in his left knee, which he could only describe as a tear, followed by immediate pain. He moved to the side of the VNA, and was bracing himself against the machine when a colleague approached. This colleague witnessing the pain that he was in, he cannot however confirm if he witnessed him stepping down from the VNA or not. He offered to get a chair to sit due to the pain level.   After a few minutes (3-5 minutes) the pain did not subside, and only worsened. This initial colleague had moved from the area, so he then approached another team member, to hand over a deck phone (another piece of work equipment), and informed him that he had injured his knee stepping out of the VNA, and that he was heading up to inform his team leader of the same. He was visibly in pain making his way to the managers office. He informed him of the incident, and that he would need to leave to seek medical attention.

As per advice that he had received, both from an external HR employee and a legal advisor, this was all that he needed to do to report the workplace incident under Irish Law. The onus was then on his manager (CS) to complete the relevant report documents. CS did not advise him of any documents that he was required to complete at the time of his report to him. To the best of his knowledge, and as per the advice he sought afterwards, his verbal report was sufficient for his side. This was as far as CS handled the incident, and he failed to conduct his duties after the fact to report the Complainant’s injury to the relevant bodies. (Internal HSE and HR teams)

As a result of this injury the Complainant was required to visit an orthopaedic surgeon, and undergo a full knee replacement, for which he is still undergoing treatment due to the extent of initial damage. He was initially on full pay through the company sick plan, however after the first month of absence he lost his shift premium, and after 6 months of absence he lost all pay from the company, and just received 67% of his pay through insurance. After approx 15 months of absence, he was talking with a work colleague who had been on long-term sick due to a workplace incident, and this person advised him that he should have been on full pay as it was work related, just like the cause of their absence. ( The Complainant cannot attest to the exact nature of this persons workplace incident, he was just informed that is was a workplace incident resulting in long-term sick leave) Further to this there was also another more senior and knowledgeable member of staff who was working at the time, that also informed him he should have been on full pay as workplace incidents are covered for this. Upon hearing this information the Complainant reached out to CS to discuss this matter, and to ensure he reported the incident. A meeting was scheduled for Mid August 2025 to discuss this onsite. In the email pertaining to the meeting invite, CS stated it was an “alleged incident”, the Complainant believe this was an attempt by CS to trigger doubt of the Complainant’s legitimacy or to essentially brandish him as a liar in the company, to cover for his own short-comings in competency for compiling the incident report that he did not do. The Complainant brought an external witness, his son who works in a HR department for a significant public sector body, to the meeting with CS, and CS refused the meeting at this time, falsely informing him that this was not allowed. The Complainant’s son informed him that he was allowed to bring an external witness to observe the meeting and to ensure that the Complainant was not being led into a trap, or being tricked into falsely incriminating himself. After CS had been informed of this, the reason was changed by him to be a refusal because the Complainant’s witness was not registered to be on site.   This meeting was then rescheduled to Mid September 2025. Upon attending the rescheduled meeting with CS, who also brought his manager, AH, the Complainant recapped the incident in question. AH was not fully aware of this incident, stating “CS briefed of this ahead of the meeting”, which immediately gave concern that CS has not informed the company as he was required to do so. It was non verbally confirmed through CSs hostile body language and AHs looks of confusion, that CS denied the incident occurring, he did not complete the report as a result. Also throughout the meeting, CS has acting in an unprofessional manner, by constantly giving intimidating looks at my witness, and when my witness attempted to correct an error in what was said by AH, CS immediately snapped at my witness, in a demeaning manner. CS stated “You have no say in this meeting as you are only a witness”

Following this meeting, and Sanofi Ireland Ltds decision, the Complainant was informed that this was not a workplace incident as no report was filed on the day. Despite his insistence that this was neglect of duty on the part of CS, Head of HSE onsite (SK) refused to acknowledge the incident as “company policy” states it needs to be reported on the day of occurrence. The Complainant advised her that he verbally informed CS, which is all that I need to do under Irish Law. SK was not accepting of this, pushing that the Complainant needed to follow company policy and not Irish Law. As a result of this neglect of duty from CS, and of Sanofi Ireland Ltd instantly siding with him, I have been at a significant loss of income from this incident. This deficit of income is continuing to grow as more time elapses. The fact that Sanofi Ireland Ltd is compliant in CS’s negligence is an unfair treatment that the Complainant is forced to face. He believes that this is unacceptable workplace behaviour. He is being penalised due to the fault of someone in a more senior role, despite following the correct path himself.

In addition to this, his annual leave balance has seen deductions as he was unable to use the leave, despite being on long-term sick leave. This leave balance should have been protected until he returned to work. This was confirmed in a WhatsApp message from CS, advising that he would retain all of his annual leave, and that this confirmation had been shared with him from HR. After raising concern about this with HR, the Complainant was asked after his meeting with CS and AH, and if he would like to pursue an internal grievance policy process, with CS rather than take legal action. However as Sanofi Ireland Ltd instantly sided with CS in relation to his injury, rather than address his negligence, the Complainant believed this would be a fruitless venture, as he had to assume that it would be the same outcome if he went through this process internally. This has already caused him significant stress and he did not want to put himself through what he could only perceive to be, a predetermined bias process in favour of someone who has proven to be incapable of satisfactorily conducting their duties in a leadership capacity.

At the very least, what the Complainant is looking for in this case, is for his lost earnings to be repaid, from the start of his sick leave until he is medically cleared to return to work. His annual leave balance that was lost to be fully reinstated. And for an apology from Sanofi Ireland Ltd for trouble they have put him through by ignoring his workplace accident in favour of supporting a failure of duty from one of their management team. The Complainant is still undergoing medical treatment, and a potential follow up surgery due to this incident. This has greatly affected his life over the past 2 years and will into the future. He has also been forced into a position where he had to replace his car as it was a manual gearbox, to an automatic gearbox car, due to limited movement in his left leg, resulting in an inability to drive a manual car without intense pain being caused. This was a significant expense that he was not in a financial position to cover due to the loss of earnings. This has led to further financial stress on top of of the physical and mental stress that he is suffering as a result of this workplace injury and the denial of it occurring in the eyes of my employer.

In cross examination the Complainant agreed that he had over 16 years service, had been trained in accident reporting and would know what to do in the case of an accident happening to any other team member.  He said however, that Mr Smith never asked him to fill out any forms in relation to what he contended was a clear statement to him that he had hurt his knee getting down from the VNA.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The “Complainant is currently employed with Sanofi Ireland Limited (“the Respondent”) having commenced employment with the Respondent on 17 October 2008 as a General Operative. By letter dated 14 March 2025, his job title was amended to “Warehouse Operator”, with all other terms and conditions expressly stated to remain unchanged.  

The employment contract does not provide for any guaranteed entitlement to sick pay. Rather, clause 13 states that the Company “may, at its absolute discretion” continue to pay during uncertified absence and “may also, at its absolute discretion” make payments in respect of medically certified leave for up to six months, with the Company retaining the discretion to cease such payments at any time.

The Respondent’s Absence Procedure is consistent with the contract. It expressly states that the Company operates a “Discretionary Sick Pay Scheme”, that payment may not be made where notification and certification requirements are not complied with, and that the Company will, at its absolute discretion, continue to pay certified absence for up to a maximum of 26 weeks.  

The same procedure expressly provides that, where a team member has more than four weeks’ absence, sick pay “will not include any allowances or shift rate”, and that continuation of the scheme beyond the stated period is at the Company’s discretion. It further provides that, where absence extends beyond six months, the Company and the team member complete an application for Income Continuance payment.

In relation to work-related accident or injury, the Absence Procedure imposes specific conditions: accidents must be immediately reported to a Team Leader or Manager; the HSE Specialist must be contacted immediately; medical treatment must be sought immediately; and an accident report form must be completed as soon as reasonably practicable. The policy further provides that only the portion of the day lost due to the accident is protected from loss of pay as of right; thereafter, following investigation, “a decision will be made as to the level and duration of sick pay”, with each case judged on its own merits and no precedent created.

The Respondent’s HSE reporting SOP is materially to the same effect. It states that failure to report an accident by the end of the working shift or working day will lead to it not being deemed to have happened at work. It also requires that accidents be reported immediately to a manager or team leader so that appropriate care and investigation can occur. Appendix 1 of the SOP requires a first draft investigation report to be completed and submitted to HSE by the end of the working shift, and states that a first-aid accident or incident not causing production to cease must be reported on the day of injury and before the end of shift, otherwise it is not deemed to have happened onsite.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On 29 May 2024, the Complainant left the workplace mid-shift, informing colleagues and his line manager, Mr Craig Smith, that he was experiencing knee pain and could not continue working. The Complainant now alleges that this event amounted to a workplace accident and that he reported it immediately to his manager Mr Smith.

The Respondent maintains no workplace accident was reported on 29 May 2024. There was no Accident Report Form completed by or on behalf of the Complainant. The Complainant did not report an accident to any colleague or line manager prior to his departure on 29 May 2024, nor was any report made to his line manager in the weeks thereafter.

The Complainant commenced long term sick leave from 29 May 2024 due to a knee condition culminating in significant surgery. Medical certificates presented by the Complainant were included in the respondent’s submission.

Throughout his absence, the Complainant remained in regular communication with his line manager Mr Smith. The text message communication related to medical certificates, consultant reviews, rehabilitation, Occupational Health and payroll matters. Those messages include transmission of certificates and updates on treatment. They do not contain any contemporaneous report in May or June 2024 that a workplace accident had occurred. At no point during the 15-month period between May 2024 and August 2025 did the Complainant assert that his injury was work-related.

The first documented message in in which the Complainant expressly asked whether his injury had been recorded as an accident on the job is the WhatsApp exchange of 26 August 2025. Craig Smith replied that the Complainant had not reported any workplace injury from the time he left in May 2024 and that all workplace accidents had to be reported at the time of occurrence as per policy. The Complainant then asserted that he had told Craig before leaving the warehouse that he had had an accident and injured his knee.

The Complainant was reviewed by Occupational Health in February 2025 and August 2025. The February 2025 report recorded that he remained unfit for work after knee surgery and that no reliable return-to-work date could then be given. The August 2025 report recorded that he remained unfit for work, might require further surgery, and for the first time stated that he felt the issue began with a workplace accident.

In August 2025, following discussions with other staff members, the Complainant contacted Sanofi to query whether the events of 29 May 2024 had been reported as a workplace incident. He contacted his line manager, Mr Craig Smith, via Whatsapp message on 26 August 2025 stating that he “was advised to check if my injury was recorded as an accident on the job.”

Mr Smith responded stating that “you have not or did not report any workplace injury from the time you left in May 2024. You are aware that all workplace accidents must be reported at the time of occurrence as per policy.” The Complainant replied by stating that “I did tell you before I left the warehouse that I had had an accident and injured my knee and had to leave work.” Mr Smith invited the Complainant to a meeting to discuss.

A meeting was arranged between the Complainant, Mr Smith and Alan Harrington, Department Manager, for 29 August 2025. The Complainant was advised that details of any visitors accompanying the Complainant would need to be provided in advance for health and safety reasons. The Complainant advised via Whatsapp that the scheduled date did not suit and instead asked for a meeting on 12 September 2025.

A meeting took place on 12 September 2025 between the Complainant and his son and Mr Smith and Mr Alan Harrington. At the meeting the Complainant for the first time outlined the circumstances of his alleged accident and further acknowledged that on 29 May 2024 no accident report form was created.

Following the 12 September meeting, Mr Smith made enquiries with Mr LH and Mr RH, the colleagues working alongside the Complainant on 29 May 2024. Both gentlemen set out their account and neither recalled either witnessing an accident nor did the Complainant report such an accident to them.

On 18 September 2025, Ms Sinead Keane the Head of Site HSE, wrote to the Complainant stating that the reported knee injury had not been recorded as a workplace accident at the time it occurred; that company policy required incidents to be reported when they happen in order to be classified as occupational accidents; and that, because no report had been filed and no investigation conducted, the Respondent was unable to provide any additional documentation or confirmation regarding the matter.

In accordance with the Absence Procedure, the Complainant received full basic pay (excluding shift premium) the first 26 weeks, after which he transitioned to Income Protection at 67% of basic salary. This is the standard procedure applicable to all absences not arising from a workplace accident. The Complainant received salary and shift payments on 24 June 2024 and 24 July 2024, and thereafter no positive shift entry appears from August 2024 onward, and a negative shift adjustment appears on 24 September 2024.

Insofar as the Complainant alleges any loss or non-payment in respect of annual leave, it is submitted that that element of the complaint is not made out. Mr Smith via WhatsApp expressly advised the Complainant on 22 November 2024, that his accrued but untaken annual leave, approximately 125 hours, would be carried forward into the next leave year. The Respondent’s annual leave recording system operates on a 12-month cycle and resets at the beginning of each leave year; accordingly, when the Complainant accessed the system on 23 September 2025, his 2024 carried-over balance was not visible on the reset screen. The Complainant appears to have interpreted that system display as meaning that the leave had been removed, but he did not seek clarification from the Respondent before advancing that contention to the WRC.

The Respondent’s annual leave policy has not been altered, and any outstanding leave remains available to be taken by the Complainant following his return to work within 15 months of the relevant leave year. In those circumstances, there was no deduction of annual leave or annual leave pay, and this aspect of the complaint is without foundation.

THE LAW

Wages is defined in s. 1 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 as:-

 “…any sums payable to the employee by the employer in connection with his employment, including—

• (a) any fee, bonus or commission, or any holiday, sick or maternity pay, or any other emolument, referable to his employment, whether payable under his contract of employment or otherwise…”

Section 5(6) provides:-

(6) Where—

(a) the total amount of any wages that are paid on any occasion by an employer to an employee is less than the total amount of wages that is properly payable by him to the employee on that occasion (after making any deductions therefrom that fall to be made and are in accordance with this Act), or

(b) none of the wages that are properly payable to an employee by an employer on any occasion (after making any such deductions as aforesaid) are paid to the employee, then, except in so far as the deficiency or non-payment is attributable to an error of computation, the amount of the deficiency or non-payment shall be treated as a deduction made by the employer from the wages of the employee on the occasion.”

Thus in essence, Section 5(6) provides that where the total amount of any wages that are paid on any occasion by an employer to an employee is less than the total amount of wages that is properly payable by him to the employee, then, except insofar as the deficiency or non – payment is attributable to an error of computation, the amount of the deficiency or non – payment should be treated as a deduction made by the employer from the wages of the employee on the occasion. The Payment of Wages Act regulates deductions from wages, not the fairness of contractual sick pay schemes. It cannot be used to create entitlements that do not arise under contract or statute.

The 1991 Act does not itself create a free-standing entitlement to sick pay. The Complainant must first establish that the sum claimed was “wages” and, crucially, that it was properly payable under the contract of employment or other binding term. The Respondent accepts that contractual sick pay can, in principle, fall within the concept of wages where it is a binding contractual entitlement. However, a purely discretionary or ex gratia sick pay arrangement does not become “properly payable” merely because the employee believes a higher amount ought to have been paid.

The Respondent relies on the High Court decision of Balans v Tesco [2020] IHEC 55, which was an appeal from the Labour Court in respect of the interpretation of the 1991 Act. This case is authority that the WRC (or Labour Court on appeal) when analysing a complaint under the 1991 Act must first establish what wages were “properly payable” before determining if a deduction occurred.

The Respondent submits that, as a matter of both fact and law, neither the enhanced sick-leave payment nor the ongoing shift allowance was properly payable to the Complainant, and accordingly no unlawful deduction within the meaning of the Act occurred.

Clause 13 of the Complainant’s written terms provides for sick pay at the Respondent’s absolute discretion and allows the Respondent to cease such payments at any time. It is submitted that this is not language creating an unconditional contractual entitlement to full pay during sickness absence.

The Absence Procedure has the same effect – it expressly describes the sick pay scheme as “Discretionary”, provides for certified sick pay only up to 26 weeks at the Respondent’s absolute discretion, excludes shift rate after four weeks’ absence, and places continuation beyond the stated period at the Respondent’s discretion.

Thus in the absence of fulfilling the SOP on reporting as set out above, the Complainant cannot establish that full salary throughout the entirety of his absence was a sum “properly payable” to him as of contractual right.

In respect of the complaint seeking continued shift premium the Absence Procedure expressly states that certified sick pay will not include allowances or shift rate where a team member has more than four weeks’ absence and the summary of payments document from payroll exhibited above confirms this was applied to the Complainant.

It is submitted that Complainant’s work-related accident argument does not improve his position under the Payment of Wages Act. The relevant policy does not say that, once an injury is asserted to be work-related, full pay automatically follows. It says the opposite: there must be immediate reporting, HSE involvement, medical treatment, and an accident report; a full investigation is then carried out; and only following that investigation is a decision made as to the level and duration of sick pay, each case being judged on its own merits.

Further, The HSE reporting SOP reinforces that approach. It requires reporting by the end of the shift/day, states that failure to report an accident by then will lead to it not being deemed to have happened at work, and requires immediate reporting and prompt investigation documentation.

The Respondent accepts that the Complainant now contends that he verbally reported a workplace accident on 29 May 2024. That contention is reflected in the September 2025 meeting note. However, even taking the Complainant’s case at its height, the meeting note also records that no accident form was completed, and the subsequent witness interview notes do not establish a contemporaneous observed workplace accident or a contemporaneous report of such an accident to those witnesses. The Respondent’s firm position is that no workplace accident was reported or recorded at the time.

Finally, and strictly without prejudice to the primary position above, the Respondent notes that the complaint is also materially affected by limitation imposed by Section 41 (6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and which governs complaints under the 1991 Act. Section 41 (6) provides: -

“Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.”

The complaint form was submitted by the Complainant on 9 November 2025, whereas the Complainant’s position is that the alleged monthly pay losses began in July 2024, being 15 months prior. To the extent the complaint seeks recovery of those earlier sums, the Respondent submits that they are, at minimum, prima facie outside the ordinary time limit.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Respondent submits that the complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 is not well founded. All wages properly payable to the Complainant pursuant to his contract and the Absence Procedure were paid in full. No deduction within the meaning of the 1991 Act occurred.

The contract and Absence Procedure do not create an automatic entitlement to full sick pay. They establish a discretionary sick pay scheme, subject to express conditions and to the Company’s discretion. The policy expressly excludes shift premium after four weeks’ absence.

In work-related accident cases, the policy requires immediate reporting, HSE notification, completion of an accident report, and an investigation, after which the level and duration of sick pay is decided case by case. As such the enhanced sick-pay provisions do not apply to the Complainant as an accident was not reported in accordance with mandatory procedures.

The annual leave element is likewise not well founded, as the Complainant was informed in November 2024 that annual leave would carry forward, and the available leave records do not establish any deduction or forfeiture of annual leave entitlement.

The Respondent submits that the complaint insofar as fully back-pay together with corrected future pay is ill-conceived in all the circumstances.

Sworn evidence was given by the Warehouse Supervisor, Mr Smith.  He outlined the strict rules regarding standard operating procedures around the reporting of workplace accidents.  He said that all team members are required to be trained in SOPs.  Forms have to be filled out, witnesses secured and the ‘root cause’ of the accident identified to prevent future accidents.  He remembered the day the Complainant came to him and said “I have to go home, my knee is at me”.  Mr Smith said “did anything happen?”  And the Complainant said “No”.  The first mention of workplace accident was in August 2025.  He went to the HSE person Ms Keane and established that no record of any accident had been filed.  He said that all team members are aware of the steps to take if there is an incident or accident i.e. general steps are - first aid, hospital if necessary, security of the site, advise Manager and fill out form.

Sworn evidence was given by Ms Keane, HR People Excellence Partner. She confirmed the normal arrangements for sick pay, 6 months being the max and then Irish Life Income continuance is applied for in the case of long term sick leave.  The Complainant was paid one shift allowance in error (2 shift allowances allowed for) and that was recouped.  Ms Keane confirmed that no employee gets full pay from the Company for long term sick absences which are covered by Irish Life.

She also confirmed that annual leave is carried over and the Complainant’s contention that his was deleted is incorrect.

Findings and Conclusions:

The Complainant had to leave his shift early on 29th May 2024 due to knee pain which he contended occurred when he was stepping down from a VNA (specialised forklift).    He contends that in conversation with his Supervisor he referred to this and that this constituted a verbal report of a workplace accident.  

Some 15 months later, the Complainant was told by someone that he should have been on full pay as the situation constituted a workplace accident.

In this investigation of the Complainant’s complaint, I examine the following issues:

Time limits

The applicable law

The respondent’s policies

Time limits

Section 41 (6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 provides:

“Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.

The complaint was received on 9th November 2025 and the cognisable time period in this case is from 10th May 2025 unless saved by Section 41 (8).

Section 41 (8) provides:

“an adjudication officer may entertain a complaint or dispute to which this section applies presented or referred to the Director General after the period referred to in subsection (6) or (7) (but not later than 6 months after such expiration), as the case may be, if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint or refer the dispute within that period was due to reasonable cause”.

The Complainant said he was told by someone in August 2025 that he should have been on full pay and hence he did not submit his complaint until after he was given that information. 

The complaint was received on 9 November 2025 so the maximum time period allowable for cognisable time period is from 10 November 2024.  However, the cognisable time period becomes a moot point if the complaint fails that there was an unlawful deduction of wages. 

The applicable law

Section 5 of the Act provides:

Section 5 (6) of the Act provides for the matter of wages “properly payable”:

The Respondent’s policies

The application of the Respondent’s sick pay policies is contained in the employee’s contract of employment and absence procedure.

I note that there is no automatic right to sick leave pay and I note the emphasis on the discretionary nature of sick pay.

The Respondent draws attention to the strict operating procedures governing the reporting of workplace incidents and accidents.

The Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Health, Safety and Environment covers reporting, investigation and corrective action or preventative action identification and implementation for all health, safety and environmental accidents, incidents and observations that occur on the Sanofi Waterford site.

The relevant sections include

At 4.0 Failure to report an accident by the end of the working shift or working day will lead to it not being deemed to have happened at work.

The Complainant blames the Warehouse Supervisor for not instigating a workplace accident investigation when he met with him on 29th May 2024.  There is a conflict of evidence in that the Supervisor stated in his evidence that when he asked if “anything happened here” the Complainant said “No”.   The Complainant states that he told the Supervisor he had to go home early due to having hurt his knee.  Given the strict operating procedures governing workplace incidents/accidents, it is unlikely the Supervisor would allow the Complainant to just leave and go home without an investigation into the circumstances.  The Complainant retrospectively claimed that there was a workplace incident/accident when in August 2025 he sought to have an incident which happened 15 months before categorised as a workplace injury.  The categorisation attempt came far too late for the Respondent’s strict procedures.  I note and accept the Respondent’s strong assertions, contained in their sick leave policy that all sick pay is discretionary and that failure to report an accident by the end of the shift or day will lead to it not being deemed to have happened at work. 

I note and accept the evidence from the HR Partner that the Complainant’s leave was carried over and I find his complaint in relation to this element is misconceived.    

For the reasons that the Respondent’s policies clearly state the circumstances where (a) sick pay is discretionary and (b) reporting of a workplace accident must occur by the end of the working day, I find the administration of the Respondent’s sick leave policy did not constitute an unlawful deduction from the Complainant’s wages.  I find the complaint to be not well founded.  

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 requires that I make a decision in relation to the provisions of that Act.

For the reasons and findings cited above, I have decided that the complaint is not well founded.

Dated:   15-06-26

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Key Words: