Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Policing Service

Representatives

Representative Association

Employee Relations Bureau

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 - 00004040

31/03/2025

The Worker referred his dispute to the Director General of the WRC on 31 March 2025.

The dispute centres around issues pertaining to the period of suspension of the Worker from 26 September 2019 to his reinstatement to duties on 6 December 2022, which include breaches of the Employer’s Suspension Policy, non-communication and loss of income.

Background

Following a road traffic collision in September 2017, the Worker was the subject of a criminal investigation. On 26 September 2019, he was informed by the Employer that he was suspended from duty. In accordance with legislation the Worker was suspended for a period of 10 days.

On 5 October 2019, the Worker was further suspended for a 3-month period. This rolling 3 monthly suspension period continued for over 3 years until the Worker was returned to duty, albeit on restricted duty, in December 2022.

The Worker continued to receive his suspension extensions stating the same reasons for his continued suspension with no change in the stated rationale. This continued despite the DPP as early as 2020 stating the Worker had no case to answer in relation to the reasons he was suspended for. Whilst the Worker did appear in the District Court and was charged with one separate offence, for which he was entirely acquitted, the Employer continued to suspend him, including after his acquittal before the courts, for reasons which were no longer under investigation.

The Worker later lodged a complaint under the Dispute Resolution Procedures, during which he was officially informed that the reason for his ongoing suspensions was that legal advice was sought on whether there were grounds to initiate internal disciplinary proceedings. This process, inexcusably, took over three years. At no stage during his suspension was the Worker informed that the suspension was connected to an alleged offence before the courts, nor that the criminal investigation had ceased and that a disciplinary route was considered instead.

The relevant provisions were invoked regarding an investigation into alleged criminal offences, but that process concluded with the DPP directing that no prosecution would be pursued. However, the relevant provision which concerns investigations into disciplinary offences was never invoked, meaning the Worker was never investigated for any disciplinary matter.

Inconsistencies Surrounding Suspension

On 26 September 2019, the Worker was suspended for a period of ten days. The matter was then referred to Internal Affairs with a recommendation for further suspension due to the reasons outlined. The Worker was under investigation since March 2018 of which the Employer was aware, and no action was ever taken. It was only following the arrest of the Worker for questioning on 25 September 2019 which would be routine that the Employer suspended him.

The Employer, in its recommendations to Internal Affairs, inexplicably and without providing supporting evidence, stated that it believed the Worker may be guilty of perverting the course of justice, further claiming that “substantial evidence” existed and that, as a result of the allegations, the Worker could not be trusted to interact honestly with the public. This position stands in direct conflict with the principle outlined in the Notice on Suspension, which expressly states that a worker “… who is suspended is presumed innocent of any wrongdoing until the case is proved. Suspension does not imply otherwise.”

It was also alleged that the Worker refused alternative postings for non-public duties—an allegation that the Worker categorically denies. In fact, when the Worker raised questions on this issue in 2021, a person four ranks above the Worker and local management, recommended conditional reinstatement during a review. This recommendation was overruled by Internal Affairs.

In essence, continuation of suspension contrary to local management’s view was recommended, based on the assumption that, even without conviction in court, the Worker could be subjected to disciplinary findings by a Board of Inquiry. Internal Affairs sought to maintain the suspension in relation to matters before the courts which, in reality, were unrelated to the grounds for which the Worker had originally been suspended.

Critically, throughout the entire duration of suspension, the Worker was never served with suspension papers identifying his appearance in the District Court as a basis for suspension. Nor was he ever served with any disciplinary papers that would have triggered an internal disciplinary investigation. This demonstrates that the Internal Affairs assertion lacked credibility, due process, and any fair procedural basis

Furthermore, while the Worker was subjected to suspension, no disciplinary investigation was ever commenced at any stage, in direct contravention of the relevant Directive and the standards of natural justice.

The overall handling of this matter underscores a complete absence of procedural fairness, with suspension imposed and maintained without evidence, without disciplinary investigation, and contrary to both local management recommendations and established policy.

The notice and reasons for his continued suspension on all notifications remained the same and at no stage was the Worker informed of any changes to his suspension reasons.

Failure to consider an alternative to suspension.

The Employer’s Suspension Policy states that a worker who is suspended is presumed innocent of any wrongdoing until the case is proved and suspension does not imply otherwise. This principle underscores the importance of treating suspension as a serious measure that must be balanced with the presumption of innocence. The Policy also states that in certain cases an alternative to suspension may be considered and a worker may be employed on other duties pending determination of the case against them.

The primary considerations for suspension are: the strength of evidence, seriousness of allegation, risk to members of the public, risk to colleagues, potential to pervert the course of justice/suborn colleagues, and options of alternatives to suspension.

In the correspondence of 2 October 2019 to the management at Internal Affairs, an official four ranks above the Worker expressed his negative opinion on all the above mentioned points and went on to state the Worker refused to consider any alternatives. The Worker spoke about alternative locations, he did not refuse but explained his issues with a particular location and inquired if there any other alternatives.

The Worker received no further information until he raised questions again in February 2021 about alternatives to suspension. A report similar to the above was again submitted by the official four ranks above the Worker, in the same format as above, only this time being completely supportive of the Worker under the same headings as above. It also clearly stated that he would be accommodated in the named location on non-public duties.

While the recommendations in March 2021 were supportive, Internal Affairs in their response was negative and continued the suspension. It is contested that at the minimum, the Worker should have been reinstated at this point and the criteria for his return to restricted duties had been met. His continued suspension only further compounded the stress and anxiety along with the continued financial loss of being suspended from duty.

It must be noted that the Employer at the time had no formal appeals process for workers who have been suspended. Nor was there any mechanism for a worker to submit representations seeking to overturn or amend the decision. The Worker was not given an opportunity to respond to the allegations or to be heard before the suspension was imposed or during the period of suspension—an omission that violated principles of fair procedures and natural justice.

Failure to adhere to the Suspension Policy

The suspension policy in operation at the time constituted a clear breach of natural justice, specifically the principle of audi alteram partem. By failing to provide the Worker with a right of appeal or any opportunity to make submissions regarding his suspension, the policy stripped him of all fair procedures.

The Suspension Policy contains a number of binding terms and conditions. While a failure by a worker to comply with these terms may result in disciplinary proceedings under the relevant Regulations, the policy imposes corresponding obligations on the Employer.

The obligation on the Employer include: a. notifying the worker of reason for suspension b. reviewing the suspension every three months c. informing the worker of all vacancies during suspension d. arranging monthly meetings between the suspended member with a specified representative or a nominee.

Notifying the Worker of reason for Suspension

In what was a clear breach of the suspension policy, the Worker was suspended initially for 5 specific allegations which were subject to a criminal investigation. The Worker was correctly informed of this and understood the reasons, albeit he disagreed with same.

It is clear that the reasons for the continued suspension of the Worker became mute when the reasons outlined in the suspension were no longer valid. Whilst the Ombudsman informed the Employer that it was exploring the possibility of proceeding with a disciplinary investigation for the same facts through their legal advisors, this was never relayed to the Worker. The suspension reasons never changed to include the criminal charge that he was facing before the court.

Reviewing the suspension every three months

The Suspension Policy requires that suspensions be reviewed every three months, considering updated evidence or changes in circumstances. It is clear there were significant changes in the investigation regarding the Worker. However, only one significant review took place in March 2021 according to internal records. While this review took into account the directions of the DPP and a very favourable review of the local management for the return to duties, the lifting of suspension was refused clearly on the advice of Internal Affairs that a disciplinary route would be an option if the Worker was successful in his defence in the District Court. None of these reasons formed the basis of his suspension, however. In fact, if a worker has been acquitted on the merits of an offence, disciplinary proceedings for an alleged breach of discipline must not be commenced or continued if (a) the proceedings would involve an inquiry into the same issues as those in respect of which the worker was acquitted, and (b) in all the circumstances, it would be unfair and oppressive to do so.

To confirm, the Worker was never the subject of a disciplinary investigation by neither the Employer nor the Ombudsman. Following a two-day trial in June 2022, the Worker was fully acquitted with no case to answer.

However, the Worker was twice further served suspension extensions for the same reasons that he was originally suspended for, almost two years after the DPP directed no criminal prosecution and still no decision by the Ombudsman. No substantive review took place on a three-monthly basis as required and if it did, no update of the reasons for continued suspension were ever provided to the Worker.

Notification of all vacancies

During the period of suspension, numerous competitions were advertised within the Employer organisation. These included highly sought-after roles and further educational opportunities and promotion courses. The Worker was not informed of any of these opportunities, as required by the Policy, and no explanation was provided, except for an acknowledgement during the Dispute Resolution Procedure. This failure deprived the Worker of the opportunity to advance his career and is a further breach of the Suspension Policy.

Requirement to meet with the Worker once a month

The Suspension Policy requires that a suspended worker is met on a monthly basis. This requirement was not fulfilled. While there was initial engagement with local management following the suspension of the Worker, regular monthly meetings did not take place. The Worker had sporadic welfare meetings with management during his three years of suspension along with contact during the suspension period occurred every three months, solely for the purpose of communicating extensions to the suspension. No monthly meetings or meaningful engagement occurred, contrary to the requirements of the policy. This was again acknowledged during the Garda Disputes Resolution Procedures and an apology issued.

Loss of income

The Suspension Policy states that during a period of suspension, a worker will receive a “suspension allowance” equivalent to 100% of basic pay. However, the policy explicitly states that no additional allowances, such as those for overtime, unsocial hours, or specific duties, will be paid. Whilst on suspension, the worker is technically on a roster tour of 9am to 5pm, Monday to Friday and is prohibited from alternative employment during these times.

It is contested that was his suspension treated differently in terms of alternative’s to suspension, the Worker would have been able to perform non-public facing duties. This would have allowed him to work non-social hours which account for approximately 20% of yearly salary.

While the primary and secondary recommendations of the person four ranks above the Worker in his recommendations to the Internal Affairs in October 2019 were very negative and instigated the suspension of the Worker on the grounds stated, the review of suspension in March 2021 painted a completely different picture of the suspension effects of the Worker, while obviously realising the changing aspects within the case itself and the decision of the DPP. While Internal Affairs did not agree with this which is quite worrying. A return to duty at this stage would have greatly assisted the Worker’s mental health and ability to earn financially.

During the grievance initiated by the Worker within the Disputes Procedures it was stated that “the matters itemised at 1 to 5 of the suspension document remained live matters which could be subject of further investigation by [the Ombudsman], accordingly they remained valid and of relevance during the members period of suspension”.

It is contested that in line with the above, the Worker remained suspended post July 2020 based on what the Ombudsman may receive in advice from its legal section. While legal advice which took over 3 years to get which in itself is outrageous, the Worker, according to the management, remained suspended whilst not under any formal investigation by neither the management nor the Ombudsman. This does not conform with the recommendations of the official four ranks above the Worker that his suspension was to continue in March 2021 due to matters before the court.

By not being returned to alternative duty in March 2021, the financial loss to the Worker was approximately 21 months of allowances that he would have received was he working between March 2021 and 5 December 2022 when he returned from suspension.

In 2021, the Worker earned €52,358.68. Had he been returned to duty in March 2021, based on those figures and calculating allowances as 20% of basic pay, he was at a loss of approximately €18,325.44 48.

Following his acquittal on 30 June 2022, the Worker’s suspension was continued for a following 5 months. There is no evidence that the Employer during this time explored any intensions of internal discipline against the Worker. The continued suspension without any review before the threat of legal action in November 2022 by the Worker’s legal team which eventually lead to the lifting of his suspension amounted in a loss of approximately €4,363.20 in allowances for this period.

Dispute Resolution Procedures

The Worker lodged his grievance on 1 August 2024. It was investigated at 3 stages concluding with the findings of an official five ranks above the Worker on 16 December 2024. As no resolution was reached having explored all avenues including the possibility of mediation, the matter was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission in line with procedure.

Conclusion

This complaint is grounded in severe and persistent breaches of the Employer’s Suspension Policy, the denial of fair procedures, and the profound detrimental effects these failures had on the Worker, who was fully exonerated after a three-year suspension and a five-year Ombudsman’s investigation.

The Worker was fully exonerated of any wrongdoing before the courts and no internal disciplinary investigation was ever conducted against him. With over 18 years of service with the Employer, the Worker has never been the subject of a disciplinary investigation and has a fully clean record.

The circumstances of this case are strikingly similar to those adjudicated in the case IR-SC-00002049 where the Adjudication Officer found that the Employer "acted extremely unfairly," ignored their own policy, and applied it in a "totally unreasonable" manner, leaving the worker to "languish on suspension."

It is argued that the Worker's treatment was even more egregious. The mandatory three-monthly reviews were a perfunctory "copy and paste" exercise, a clear example of the "rubber-stamping" condemned in the IR-SC-00002049 decision. Critically, the suspension persisted long after the foundational rationale for it had collapsed—the DPP ruled out 14 criminal charges and the criminal investigation was ceased, facts known the Employer but never relayed to the Worker. He was simply left to languish.

Mirroring the failures in IR-SC-00002049, the Worker was:

a)      Denied any fair procedure or opportunity to make representations.

b)      Not provided with reasons or updates for the suspension's continuation.

c)      Not considered for any alternative to suspension, in direct contradiction of the policy.

d)      Not notified of internal vacancies.

e)      Deprived of any statutory or internal route to appeal the decision.

The Adjudication Officer in case IR-SC-00002049 rightly concluded that while a worker is not automatically entitled to unworked allowances, significant compensation is warranted for the breach of rights and the distress caused by an unfair suspension process.

It is submitted that the Worker is entitled to substantial compensation for:

·        The breach of fair procedures and resulting distress: For the egregious failure to follow its own policy and the fundamental lack of fair procedures, which caused significant personal and professional hardship.

·        The loss of opportunity: For the professional stagnation and financial loss caused by the failure to notify him of promotional and educational vacancies during his three-year suspension.

·        The punitive nature of the suspension: For the inordinate length of a "holding" suspension that functionally served as a punitive measure without any finding of wrongdoing.

The failures in this case were not merely procedural; they constituted a fundamental denial of justice. The Worker was punished without due process, and he is entitled to a significant award for the time he was left to languish under an unjust and improperly managed suspension.

The Worker was suspended from duty on 26 September 2019 while under investigation by a relevant Ombudsman into criminal allegations arising from an investigation into a road traffic collision that occurred in 2017. The Worker remained on suspension until 5 December 2022.

These investigations led to a prosecution by the DPP in the District Court. Following trial, the matters were dismissed by the District Court Judge on 30 June 2022. Following this, the Ombudsman confirmed that it was still considering commencing a disciplinary investigation and was awaiting further legal advice.

Following the lack of progress by the Ombudsman, a successful application was made to end the suspension on 5 December 2022. The Ombudsman did not confirm that it was not pursuing the matter against the Worker until 22 October 2023. The relevant person in the division, also confirmed on 23 October 2023 that no internal disciplinary action would be taken against the Worker.

The Worker made a complaint under the Disputes Resolution Procedures (DRP) on 1 August 2024 in regard to his suspension, specifically that the Employer’s Suspension Policy was not properly complied with and that he was at a financial loss as a result of his suspension.

The DRP allows for three formal stages of investigation. If the complainant is not satisfied with the with the final outcome at Stage 3 then, having exhausted all internal procedures, the matter may be referred to the WRC for adjudication.

The Worker had the benefit of all three stages above. His complaint was investigated first by a person three ranks above him, then at Stage 2 by a person four ranks above him, and then finally by a person five ranks above him. The Worker’s complaint was broken into 6 complaints, two were upheld, that is that the Employer’s Suspension Policy was not fully complied with in two regards, firstly that the Worker was not made aware of vacancies while he was suspended contrary to the Suspension Policy and secondly that there was insufficient evidence to show that he had been met with consistently on a monthly basis as per the Suspension Policy. For these breaches, the Worker received an apology and the management were notified and reminded of the suspension policy requirements.

The other four matters were not upheld at any stage. The Worker’s suspension and continued suspension after the finalisation of the criminal prosecution was found to be valid. It was found that alternatives to suspension had been considered and a number of offers were made to the Worker which were not accepted. Any late notification of continued suspension did not invalidate his suspension. Finally, he was not at any financial loss as the Worker has no right to allowances while on suspension and was in receipt of 100% of basic salary as per the Suspension Policy.

Employer’s Position

The Employer relies on the statutory authority with regard to the suspension and asserted that the Worker was properly and legally suspended in compliance with the relevant Regulations given that the Ombudsman was proceeding with criminal prosecution and following this had disciplinary proceedings in contemplation.

In the course of the investigations into the Worker’s complaint under the DRP, all three persons who examined the matters complained of at every stage found that there had been no breach of the Regulations or Suspension Policy in regard to the length of suspension and the continued suspension post the criminal trial. The reasons given were the fact that the Ombudsman confirmed that it was considering disciplinary proceedings following the criminal proceedings and an employee may be suspended pending the outcome of disciplinary procedures.

In regard to the issue raised that the reasons for the Worker’s suspension were not valid reasons and were not the subject of his prosecution, management noted that although the Worker was prosecuted pursuant to the relevant legislation, the Ombudsman was not precluded from investigating the matters detailed under 1 to 5 on the suspension document from a disciplinary perspective once the criminal process had been completed. Furthermore, the Ombudsman confirmed that it was considering pursuing a disciplinary investigation against the Worker.

In regard to the complaint that the Worker did not always receive notification of his suspension prior to the extension date, it was found that this did not in fact negate or invalidate his suspension as, in line with the relevant regulations, regardless of late notification of extension, a worker in any case remains under suspension until such time as a decision is made that the suspension should cease.

In regard to the requirement under the Suspension Policy to consider alternatives to suspension, the findings were that this was also complied with and the Worker had been offered alternative locations but these offers were not accepted. In any case the requirement is that ‘in certain cases an alternative to suspension may be considered...’ It was held on investigation that this was fully complied with.

In light of the above findings, it is the position of the Employer that the suspension for the period from 26 September 2019 to 5 December 2022 was a valid suspension under the relevant Regulations. In addition, where any breach of the suspension was found to have occurred, the Worker received an apology and the management were reminded of their obligations to comply with the Policy on Suspension. Management deemed this a reasonable and sufficient response to the findings.

Loss of Earnings/Allowances Claim

The Worker also complains that he is at a financial loss as a result of his suspension and is seeking payment for loss of allowances. The Employer has made it clear that the Worker has absolutely no entitlement to loss of allowances payment under the Policy Document on Suspension since he has no right to payment of allowances while suspended. The Suspension Policy states that a payment in lieu of 100% basic pay, including rent allowance would be paid. However, no payment in respect of any other allowance would be paid for the period of suspension.

The wording of the relevant Code makes it clear that such allowances are only payable for duties actually performed. The Worker being on suspension was not performing any duties that would entitle him to the payment of allowances.

The suspension document states clearly that the working week during suspension would be considered as 9am to 5pm each day on a Monday to Friday basis. Therefore, the Worker has no entitlement to loss of allowances.

Conclusion

The Worker has had the benefit of three separate investigations into his grievances in respect of his suspension under the internal Disputes Resolution Procedures. Each complaint was thoroughly investigated and a comprehensive rationale provided for the conclusions reached. He has had the benefit of all fair procedures.

In carrying out the investigations, the Employer’s management examined all complaints and found that the Worker was properly suspended, his suspension was continued in compliance with the Regulations, the reasons for his suspension remained valid even post prosecution and alternatives to suspension were considered and alternatives were offered to the Worker which he preferred not to accept.

Where management found for the Worker in regard to his complaints that vacancies were not notified to him as required under the Suspension Policy and the management failed to ensure he was always met with on a monthly basis, management apologised for these oversights and issued a notice to management in functional areas to ensure compliance with the Suspension Policy. This was considered reasonable and sufficient in the circumstances.

The Worker has no entitlement to any allowances given that such allowances are only payable on ‘performance of duties’ which the Worker was not doing while suspended. The Suspension Policy states clearly that no other allowances are payable while on suspension other than the ‘suspension allowance’ which is 100% of basic salary.

The Adjudicator is precluded under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 from making any recommendation that would have an impact on a body of workers. Therefore, any recommendation in regard to the Suspension Policy and how it is administered would affect a body of workers.

Furthermore, as previously stated by the Labour Court in Bord Gais Eireann v A Worker AD1377:

‘It is not the function of this Court to form a view on the merits of the complaints giving rise to those investigations nor can it substitute its views for those of the investigators appointed in either case. Rather the role of the Court is to establish if the procedures used by the company conformed to the generally accepted standard of fairness, objectivity that would normally be used in cases such as these.’

The decision to suspend is just such a decision and it is therefore not the function of the Adjudicator to substitute their own decision for that of the Employer.

Finally, there is no authority under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 to make a recommendation on a collective matter. Any finding that would recommend altering or overturning a policy made under Regulation would be outside the jurisdiction of section 13.

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

There was no dispute that, subsequent to a road traffic collision in September 2017, the Worker was the subject of a criminal investigation. After the Worker’s arrest for questioning in on 25 September 2019, the Worker was suspended on 25 September 2019 until 5 October 2019. The stated reason for the suspension was the instigation of an investigation by the relevant Ombudsman into four alleged offences. On 5 October 2019, the Worker was again suspended in connection with five allegations related to the road incident. A further suspension was imposed from 1 November 2019 to 6 December 2022 on the same grounds.

I note that there was no mechanism available to the Worker to challenge or appeal the decision to suspend him. The Worker’s submission was that he understood the reasons, albeit he disagreed with them. The Employer was not entitled to dispense with fair procedures in determining a lengthy suspension. In the circumstances, the Worker was entitled to have been afforded an opportunity to present his case before decisions were made either to suspend him or to continue his suspension.

I note that the report of the person four ranks above the Worker of 2 October 2019 suggested that that two alternative locations were offered to the Worker, which he allegedly declined. The report recommended that, in light of the Worker’s refusal to work in another location, a further suspension was necessary. The Worker, however, disputes that he refused any relocation offers.

It appears that following conversations with the Worker, two officials concluded that he was not willing to move to the locations offered to him. If the alleged refusal to relocate constituted a reason—or one of the reasons—for suspension, as suggested in the report of 2 October 2019, and if alternatives were genuinely explored, any misunderstanding could likely have been resolved had the Employer held regular meetings with the Worker as required by the Policy and conducted meaningful three‑monthly reviews rather than simply reaffirming the prior decision. This is even more concerning as the Worker brought the matter to the Employer’s attention in February 2021

I note that in or around July 2020, the Director of Public Prosecutions indicated that none of the matters for which the Worker had been suspended would be pursued. This was not communicated to the Worker at that time. The Worker was summonsed to court on one separate charge. However, the Worker’s suspension continued for the reasons originally stated in 2019; notably, he was never suspended on foot of the separate charge. The reasons for suspension did not change at any time. Moreover, the charge against the Worker was dismissed on 30 June 2022. Notwithstanding that dismissal—and despite the fact that the matters underpinning the suspension had not been pursued since July 2020—the suspension continued until December 2022 for reasons that had ceased to be investigated in July 2020.

On 17 February 2021, local management recommended that it was no longer in the Employer’s interest to maintain the Worker on suspension. Internal Affairs disagreed, asserting that “the matters remain before the courts.” However, the matters then before the courts were unrelated to the reasons for which the Worker had been suspended, and there was nothing to suggest that the Worker was informed that the grounds for suspension had changed to reflect his court appearance. Internal Affairs also contended that the matters could still be investigated in a disciplinary process. It appears that the Employer awaited the Ombudsman’s decision on any potential disciplinary proceedings, while the Ombudsman was in turn awaiting legal advice. The decision-maker agreed with the Internal Affairs recommendation and the Worker remained suspended

I note that the relevant Directive places an obligation on the Employer, in circumstances such as these, to conduct an investigation of both criminal and disciplinary issues as a matter of priority. The relevant regulations in the section dealing with disciplinary proceeding and any related criminal proceedings provide that in circumstances where a worked has been acquitted on the merits of an offence, no disciplinary process shall be commenced (or continued if already commenced) if the proceeding would involve an inquiry into the same issues as those in respect of which the worker was acquitted and if in all the circumstances, it would be unfair and oppressive to do so.

Against that backdrop, the Employer’s position—that it was justified in maintaining the Worker’s suspension even after his acquittal on the basis that the Ombudsman was considering whether to commence disciplinary proceedings—appears difficult to justify. I accept that an employee may be suspended pending the outcome of disciplinary procedures. However, no such procedures had been initiated in this case.

The eventual decision to lift the suspension was taken without a determination—by either the Ombudsman or the Employer—regarding potential disciplinary proceedings. It appears likely that the suspension was lifted primarily as a result of the involvement of the Worker’s legal representative. This further undermines the Employer’s decision as to the requirement or necessity of continued suspension pending any such decision.

The Employer’s compliance with the policy, particularly in the context of vacancy notifications; monthly meetings; and timeliness of extension notices fell short of best standards. The Employer acknowledged and apologised for failing to notify the Worker of promotional vacancies during his suspension, contrary to its own policy. The Employer also concluded that there was insufficient evidence of monthly meetings as required by the suspension policy and again issued an apology.

I accept that the policy states that a late notification of continued suspension did not invalidate the suspension. However, fundamental fairness requires that an employee be informed promptly that a review has been conducted and be advised of the outcome.

Regarding the loss of income, the Employer relied on a Labour Court recommendation (on appeal from the WRC recommendation cited by the Worker) where the Court stated:

“Both parties accept that the policy governing the suspension of workers provide for payment of a suspension allowance equivalent to 100% of basic pay for the period of suspension and that the worker in this case received the applicable suspension allowance. The policy does not provide for payment of additional allowances or overtime. The policy and applicable regulations do not provide for the application of any discretion or exceptions in any particular circumstances. The worker is seeking that the terms of that policy be set aside in his case.

When assisting parties resolve individual disputes the Court has no role or remit to step outside applicable processes and procedures. The Court notes that the suspension policy is contained in Regulations in place for this employment.  The Court is of the view that the policy in relation to payment when on suspension was applied correctly in this case.”

In line with the above, I find that the policy was applied correctly during the period of suspension in the context of the payment of a suspension allowance.

Having carefully considered the circumstances of this dispute, I find that the Employer disregarded its own procedures and the manner in which the Worker’s suspension was handled did not adhere to established best‑practice standards.

I recommend that the Employer pay the Worker €15,000 in compensation for the significant failures by the Employer with regards to the manner in which the Worker’s suspension was handled.

Flawed suspension