Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

An Employer

Representatives

Ciarán O'Neill

Garda Representative Association

Employee Relations Bureau

An Garda Síochána

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 - 00005228

26/09/2025

This hearing was conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road, Dublin. In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) the hearing was conducted in recognition of the fact that all formal hearings should be conducted fairly.

The hearing was not, however, conducted in public as it concerned a dispute brought under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969.

Industrial Relations disputes are primarily heard on the basis of factual submissions provided by the respective parties. Relevant parties might be invited to give an oral recollection of events, facts and matters within their knowledge. Testimony may be subject to rebuttal by witnesses or other relevant contradicting evidence provided by the other side.

The specific details of the dispute are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 26th of September 2025.

The Complainant was represented by an Official from his representative body. The Complainant gave an oral account of the facts which have given rise to this dispute. A comprehensive submission was presented to the WRC on the 10th of August 2026.

The Complainant additionally relied on the submission set out in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which read as follows:  

This complaint concerns the non-payment of an overtime claim submitted by Detective Garda (D/Garda) PM for duties performed on 10 March 2024. On this date, D/Garda PM travelled to Boston as a Personal Protection Officer assigned to accompany An.

On 4 March 2024, prior to the commencement of this duty, Form FT3 (application to travel abroad) was submitted through the Chief Superintendent’s Office, SDU, to cover the travel period 10–18 March 2024 inclusive. In his accompanying report to the Assistant Commissioner, Detective Chief Superintendent W confirmed that D/Garda PM was required to travel for this duty during the stated dates and strongly recommended approval of the application.

The Assistant Commissioner approved Form FT3 for the period of travel specified.

Despite this approval and the work performed, D/Garda PM’s supervisory sergeant, Detective Sergeant T, refused to authorize overtime payment for 10 March 2024, citing the absence of a pre-sanction form specific to that date. This refusal was subsequently upheld by Detective Chief Superintendent W, who stated:

“In the absence of the pre-authorized form from D/Garda PM and his line Managers, I cannot accede to the granting of payment for overtime dated 10 March 2024. D/Garda PM may avail of TOIL (Time Off in Lieu) for this overtime period.”

However, under Garda Finance Code (F) 10.5 (4), where Time Off in Lieu is not availed of, the member concerned is entitled to payment for overtime at the following rates:

Time and a half for ordinary overtime duty hours; and

Double time in respect of overtime worked on Sundays and Public Holidays.

D/Garda PM has clearly indicated that he does not wish to avail of TOIL and instead seeks payment for the overtime worked on 10 March 2024, which is in line with his terms and conditions of employment and the Garda Finance Code. His application for payment was refused despite the clear directions contained in the Code regarding overtime and TOIL.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute. 

The Respondent was represented by members of its own Employment Relations Management Team.

The Respondent provided me with a comprehensive written submission received by the WRC on the 11th of August 2026.

No witness came forward on behalf of the Respondent as it sought to rely on the efficacy of its own internal procedures. Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries of the Employee Relations Manager so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute.

I have reviewed the respective positions of the parties and the material submitted in support of those positions. In conducting my investigation, I have taken account of all relevant oral and written submissions presented by the parties.

The Complainant works in a protection role and is assigned to a particular and prominent individual, Mr. F. He works a one-week-on, one-week-off rotation. During his working week, the Complainant may work well in excess of 100 hours, depending on the movements and requirements of Mr. F. The Complainant explained that he receives a fixed weekly allowance intended to compensate for overtime worked beyond a standard forty-hour week. This allowance is paid regardless of the actual number of overtime hours worked.

From time to time, the Complainant is required to travel with Mr. F. In March of 2024, the Complainant was notified by Mr. F’s office that he would be required to travel on a trip scheduled to run from 10th March to the 18th March 2024. The Complainant duly notified his own superiors of the proposed travel arrangements and their duration. The first three days of the trip coincided with days on which the Complainant would ordinarily have been off duty under his roster. This arose simply from the manner in which his work rotation fell.

It appears that there is no formal channel of communication between the Complainant’s management and the Office of Mr. F. The latter determines the itinerary, flights and travel arrangements, which are then communicated to the Complainant. The Complainant is effectively incorporated into those arrangements, and whatever protection and support services are considered necessary for Mr. F are provided by the Respondent.

I accept the Complainant’s evidence that, since the Covid-19 pandemic, it has become standard practice for a member of Mr. F’s protection team to travel a day in advance of the principal party. This is done to ensure that all security and logistical arrangements have been checked and are in place prior to Mr. F’s arrival. On this occasion, the Complainant was assigned that responsibility and travelled on the 10th March 2024, one day before Mr. F departed Ireland on the 11th March 2024.

The Complainant travelled on a long-haul flight on the 10th of March 2024, joined Mr. F on the 11th of March 2024, and remained in attendance on him in accordance with his duties until their return to Ireland on the 18th March 2024.

Following the trip, the Complainant submitted an overtime claim for 56 hours. I am satisfied that the vast majority of those hours related to the travel period between the 10th and 18th of March 2024, although the claim also included a small number of hours attributed to preparatory work undertaken before departure.

As I understand it, overtime claims are administered on a four-week roster basis. Different approval requirements apply where an employee exceeds 50 hours or 70 hours overtime within a roster period, and there is an overall limit of 100 overtime hours within any such period.

I accept that the Complainant’s normal working arrangement does not generally result in significant overtime claims because he receives the fixed weekly allowance associated with his role.

The overtime claim was assessed, and payment was refused in respect of 27 of the 56 hours claimed. Seven hours related to preparatory work undertaken before departure during the Complainant’s off-duty period. The remaining twenty hours related to the 10th of March 2024, the day on which the Complainant travelled in advance of Mr. F. Those twenty hours included time spent travelling, time at the airport, flight time and the completion of duties necessary to prepare for Mr. F’s arrival.

The Respondent approved payment for the remaining twenty-nine hours, including hours worked on the 11th and 12th of March 2024, notwithstanding that those days also fell during what would otherwise have been the Complainant’s off-duty period.

The Respondent's position is, in essence, that the Complainant bears responsibility for the shortfall because he failed to notify management in advance that he would be submitting a substantial overtime claim. In support of this position, the Respondent relies on a workplace circular issued in December of 2023 reminding staff that applications likely to exceed 50 or 70 hours of overtime require prior notification and supporting documentation.

The Respondent has asked that I might be particularly cognisant of the said communication circulated (across the entire workplace) in December of 2023 which reads as follows:

Personnel are reminded that the following measures are in place to manage the expenditure of.. [Workplace].. and to ensure that all overtime approved is absolutely essential. It is incumbent upon each member to ensure the timely submission of the relevant completed supporting documentation, without which applications may be delayed for approval.

Personnel are also reminded that no Member should exceed 70 hours without the explicit approval of this office and the office of A……….., G.

All applications to this office for Overtime exceeding 50 and 70 hours must include the following information:-

· Applicant’s requirements:

1. Clear summary of what duties to be performed on overtime (bullet points will not suffice).

2. Submission of overtime application (digital) forms authorised by their relevant supervisor

· Supervisors’ requirements:

1. Firm recommendations from relevant supervisors – D/Sergeant and D/Inspector.

2. Overtime hours worked in the preceding roster.

3. Details of efforts made to cover the necessary duty through alternative measures, to ensure the health and safety of members exceeding 70 hours.

4. Signed approved overtime application (digital) forms

The circular clearly places an obligation on employees who expect to exceed the applicable overtime thresholds to notify their supervisors in advance. The Complainant has not provided a wholly satisfactory explanation as to why he did not do so, relying instead on the practical difficulty of estimating in advance the number of overtime hours that might ultimately arise during a foreign trip.

However, it has also been pointed out that there was no obligation on the Complainant to seek approval if he did not anticipate exceeding 50 hours. Given that the claim ultimately amounted to 56 hours, it is entirely conceivable that the Complainant did not expect the threshold to be exceeded.

The Respondent has maintained its refusal to pay for the twenty hours worked on 10th of March 2024 on the basis that the overtime exposure was not notified in advance. However, as the Complainant correctly points out, the Respondent nevertheless paid overtime for 11th and 12th of March 2024, despite those hours also not having been specifically identified or approved in advance.

It is apparent that management has distinguished between the day on which the Complainant travelled alone in advance of Mr. F and the subsequent days spent accompanying Mr. F. There was no objection to paying overtime for the latter period, but payment was refused for the former.

In my view, the Respondent cannot rely on the Complainant’s failure to provide an advance estimate of overtime where that requirement has been applied inconsistently. The Respondent has paid for overtime worked on days where the hours had not been pre-disclosed yet refused payment for another day where the same circumstance applied.

Furthermore, the Respondent has not disputed the Complainant’s evidence that advance travel by a member of the protection team is an established and recognised feature of foreign travel involving Mr. F. I would be leery of being involved in a proposition that someone would not get paid for a day of work. In those circumstances, I am satisfied that the Complainant’s activities on the 10th of March 2024 were undertaken wholly in the course of his duties as a Protection Officer assigned to Mr. F. To suggest otherwise is

I note that, instead of paying the disputed 27 hours, the Respondent has offered the Complainant time off in lieu. The Complainant has declined that proposal on principle and has argued that any accrued time off in lieu should, in any event, be capable of being converted into payment.

It is also noteworthy that, had the total claim been limited to 50 hours, it appears that it would have been paid without issue. The Complainant was, in fact, paid for 29 of the 56 hours claimed.

In all the circumstances, and by way of a fair and practical resolution, I recommend that the Respondent pay the Complainant be paid for at least the twenty hours worked on the 10th of March 2024. I am advised that the value of those hours is €1,262.00, and I consider a payment in and around that sum to be appropriate.