Complainant

Respondent

Parties

An Officer

A State Agency

Complainant

Respondent

Representatives

Self-Represented

Barra Faughnan BL instructed by Eileen Burke, of  The Chief State Solicitor’s Office.

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-00074037-001

04/08/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00074101-001

06/08/2025

The issues in contention were complaints under the Parental Leave Act 1998 and the Payment of Wages Act ,1991 by an Officer against A State Agency.

The Complainant began the employment on the 1st March 2021, and it continues.

The rate of pay was stated by the Complainant to have been € 2,300 per fortnight for a 44-hour week.

The Complainant was self-represented. He gave a detailed Oral Testimony supported by relevant copy correspondence with the Respondent.

1:1        Section 18 of the Parental Leave Act 1998 CA: 00074037-001

He had sought Domestic Violence Leave on the 11th July 2025. The request was declined by the respondent on the basis that the Complainant had not provided a Third Party - Garda Siochana -reference number to support his claim.

The Complainant argued from the Act that an applicant is not obliged to provide any details of a case to his Employer. The Employer is notified as soon as possible of the Leave - often after the fact as a situation can arise unexpectedly.

A WRC Guideline was exhibited to support this case. In addition to comply with this Employer /Respondent request would have been in breach of GDPR Regulations as regards the other party involved.

Furthermore, the refusal to grant the Leave equated to an act of Penalisation under Section 25 of the Act against the Complainant for invoking his statutory rights. 

1:2     Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 CA: 00074101-001

The Complainant argued that the deduction in Pay for the 11th July 2025 was an illegal deduction under Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act,1991.

Detailed Cross Examination between the Parties took place.

The Respondent was represented by Mr B Faughnan BL supported by a number of Managers including Mr DE, the HR Governor, involved. Extensive Oral testimony was given supported by a very detailed Written Submission.

2:1         Section 18 of the Parental Leave Act 1998 CA: 00074037-001

Mr Faughnan argued that the taking of Domestic Violence leave has to fall under some very basic Managerial controls – in this case some very basic paperwork to substantiate the claim. It was recognised that very high standards of confidentiality are required of the Employer. None the less a basic communication from the Garda Station involved here stating that the Complainant had attended was not unreasonable. This did not involve going into any specific details of the case at it involved the Complainant’s Partner.

The relevant Department of Expenditure and Law Reform Policy Circular 16 of 2023 Domestic Violence and Abuse – Civil Service policy and supports was exhibited in support.

The chronology of events was pointed out. On the 10th July 2025 the Complainant had requested a day’s annual leave for the 11th as a “shift swap” with a colleague had fallen through. This had to be declined by the Respondent as the maximum number of Leave days across the workplace for the 11th had been reached. The Complainant had not attended on the 11th July, and the following day had sought to have the 11th now be categorised as a Domestic Violence leave day.

In his Oral Testimony Mr DE had noted that the day, the 11th , could not be described as an emergency as it had been the subject of a Swap requested well in advance and latterly a request for an Annual leave day. Requesting some very basic details from the Complainant in support of the fact that he / his Partner had met with the Gardai on the day was a very reasonable Management request. It was agreed that a Garda Pulse Number had been suggested but any communication from the Garda Station would have sufficed.

As regards issues of detail the Complainant had already disclosed sensitive information to the Respondent concerning the case – an issue had arisen on the 18th December 2024 where Domestic Violence leave had been discussed between the Parties. There was little new to add.

DE&LR Circular 16 of 2023 was exhibited. The provisions governing confidentiality and the availability of Support Services were noted. Governor D gave detailed Oral testimony on all these points.

The basic case was that it was not unreasonable for the Employer to seek some basic information regarding the Leave Application - in this case attending at the Garda Station -outside of any personal information regarding the Complainant’s partner or specifics of the case.

As regards the suggestion of Penalisation for bringing this complaint it was not supported by any evidence and falls well outside of any accepted definition of Penalisation.

2:2     Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 CA: 00074101-001

The Respondent contended that as nothing illegal had taken place regarding the leave there was no case to answer here.

3:1      Section 18 of the Parental Leave Act 1998 CA: 00074037-001

The Legal Position.

The governing Law is the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 2023 -particularly Section 7 Domestic Violence Leave. Section 13AA of the Parental Leave Act, 1988 is also central

 For Civil Servants this has been codified in Circular 16/2023 Domestic violence and abuse -Civil Service policy and supports. This is effectively a comprehensive Operating manual for all staff exposed to Domestic Violence either as a Victim or a Staff Manager to whom the Victim reports. 

In addition, the WRC has a Guidance Sheet in this area.

All the above emphasise to a major degree the absolute need for confidentially in all cases where domestic Violence is a feature.

The WRC in their Guidelines state

“An employer must acknowledge the confirmation but may not request further information regarding the facts surrounding the taking of the leave.”

This reference was heavily relied upon by the Complainant in this case.

Legal issues notwithstanding all complaints and cases rest on their own factual context and the legislative position. Neither can be considered in isolation.

3:2         Consideration of Evidence - both Oral and Written

Oral Testimony was given by Mr DE for the respondent and from the Complainant.

The key issue was the presence/non presence of any corroborative evidence as to what took place on the 11th July 2025. The Complainant was of the view that no information could be given as it would breach the GDPR Rights of his Partner, who had not consented. The Respondent argued that some basic HR style data was necessary to certify if the Leave was even applicable or qualified as Domestic Violence Leave.

It was also clear that there was a Hang Over from the events of the 18th December 2024. Mr DE for the Respondent was well informed in confidence, from that time, of the more sensitive personal details of the case.

It was also mentioned in passing from the Complainant that the Legal representative of his Partner had cautioned against any references to the Gardai being raised in the context of his Partner’ own legal issues. References to unforeseen “Legal Consequences” in these matters were made by the Complainant.

It was clear to the Adjudicator that the Complainant was taking a very rigid, almost absolutist view as regards not supplying even basic details. Questions from the Adjudicator as to possible compromise positions that could have been adopted were not seen as appropriate by the Complainant.

Mr DE, for the Respondent, was a senior officer responsible for staff management & HR matters in a very large State Agency. He was already familiar with the sensitive details of the Complainant’s case. He raised the issue of the sequence of events, the failed Shift SWAP, followed by an unfacilitated Annual leave request (all leave on the day had already been booked) then Domestic Violence Leave.

He argued, from a pure HR Management point of view, it was not unreasonable to ask the Complainant for some very basic details as to his activities, on the 11th July 2025. Ironically, the sensitive personal details had already been confided in Mr DE in in earlier discussions with the Complainant in the December / January period

The Adjudication view has to be nuanced and has to be careful to distinguish between personal details of a Domestic Violence incident which must remain confidential and a basic requirement on all employees to inform their Manager for the reasons for their claiming a day’s Leave at full Pay.

All forms of Leave from Basic Annual Leave to “Force Majure or Domestic Violence” Leave cannot be seen as “divinely” granted without out some very basic requirements to facilitate HR Administration and good management of staff resources. This does not require a Complainant revealing very sensitive personal confidential information particularly in a context where the very detailed procedures in Circular 16/2023 are being applied.

Mr DE  for the Respondent indicted considerable flexibility, the suggestion of the Garda PULSE number was not categoric and it appeared a compromise could have been reached. Circular 16/2023 Domestic violence and abuse - Civil Service policy and support were obviously familiar to him.

However, the absolutist attitude of the Complainant made this impossible.

Accordingly, the Adjudication view, in summary, has to be that the Respondent acted proportionately.

The granting of the Leave as Domestic violence Leave was not warranted largely due to the completely “absolutist” approach of the Complainant as regards even basic staff administrative details.

The complaint of Penalisation was not properly supported to any degree required by Legal precedence or definition of Victimisation/Penalisation.

3:3       Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 CA: 00074101-001

As the issue of the granting of Domestic Violence Leave to the Complainant has not been decided in the Complainant’s favour the linked Payment of Wages Claim has to fall.

It has to be deemed Legally Not Properly Founded.

Domestic Violence Leave. Payment of Wages Act.