ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00054149
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Vadim Krasko | Dachser Ireland Limited |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Representatives | Self-Represented | Anna Rosa Raso of ESA Consultants |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 18 of the Parental Leave Act 1998 | CA-00066187-001 | 23/09/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 18/11/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 18 of the Parental Leave Act 1998 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.
In deference to the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski v Ireland and the WRC [2021] IESC 24 on the 6th of April 2021 the Parties were informed in advance that the Hearing would normally be in Public, Testimony under Oath or Affirmation would be required and full cross examination of all witnesses would be provided for.
The required Affirmation / Oath was administered to all witnesses present. The legal peril of committing Perjury was explained to all parties.
The issue of anonymisation in the published finding of the WRC was considered by the Parties but not deemed necessary.
Background:
The issue in contention concerned a complaint of Penalisation against a Multi-National Logistics Company, under the Parental Leave Act, 1998 by the Complainant, a Warehouse Operative. The Employment began on the 12th July 2028 and continues. The rate of pay was stated by the Complainant to have been € 24,615 on initial appointment for a 40-hour week. |
1: Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was self-represented and submitted a detailed written submission. In Oral testimony he stated that he had applied to the Respondent for Parental Leave on the 24th August 2024. This request was declined by the Respondent, on the basis that the Complainant was on long term sick leave. The Respondent employer maintained that it was not possible to be on Sick Leave simultaneously with being on Parental leave. A detailed employer letter (9th September 2024) following a meeting on the 22nd August 2024 was submitted in evidence. The Complainant also maintained that he had been threatened at the same time with dismissal for incapacity and or long-term disability. All these assertions were strongly contested by the Complainant who maintained that an application for Parental leave could be approved to commence when an employee returned to work from Sick leave. His child was in the eligible category and there was no logical or rational reason for the refusal. |
2: Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent Employer was represented by Ms A.R. Raso from ESA Consultants. She was supported by the HR Manger, Ms.X. A detailed written submission was presented. In essence the Respondent pointed to Section 14 (2) of the Parental Leave Act 1998 as amended by the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023. This is quoted below. PART III Employment Rights Section 14 Protection of employment rights. 14.— (2) Absence from employment while on parental leave shall not be treated as part of any other leave from employment (including sick leave, annual leave, adoptive leave, maternity leave , force majeure leave, leave for medical care purposes and domestic violence leave) to which the employee concerned is entitled. The Complainant had been on extended sick leave since the 28th March 2022. Considerable contact had been maintained with a number of Occupational Health reviews. The Respondent Terminal Manager, Mr C, had written a detailed letter on the 9th September 2024 setting out the company positon. Parental Leave could not be taken simultaneously with Sick leave. Section 14(2) of the Cat was clear on this point. The Respondent had no issue with the Complainant taking / applying for Parental leave, but this could only be considered once he had returned to work. The allegations of Penalisation were completely unfounded. In Oral testimony it was observed that the Respondent had been remarkably patient with an employee absent on Sick Leave since March 2022.
|
3: Findings and Conclusions:
3:1 The Legal position The Situation is covered by Section 14 (2) of the Parental Leave Act 1998 as amended by the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023. PART III Employment Rights Section 14 Protection of employment rights. 14.— (2) Absence from employment while on parental leave shall not be treated as part of any other leave from employment (including sick leave, annual leave, adoptive leave, maternity leave, force majeure leave, leave for medical care purposes and domestic violence leave) to which the employee concerned is entitled. Parental leave cannot exist simultaneously with Sick Leave, particularly so when the Sick Leave is already of an extended duration, as in this case. 3:2 Summary Conclusion Regrettably for the Complainant the complaint must fail on the basis set out above.
|
4: Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and Section 14 (2) of the Parental Leave Act 1998 as amended by the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 require that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions of the cited Acts.
CA: - 00066187-001
The Complaint is Legally Not Well Founded and must be deemed a failure.
Dated: 5th March 2026.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Key Words:
Parental Leave Act, 1998 |