Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Postal Worker

Postal Service

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-00007190-001

26/09/2016

The Complainant referred a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission on 26^th September 2016 in relation to his request for Force Majeure Leave which had been refused by the Respondent Company.

The Complainant stated he was due to commence work on 18^th March 2016 at 2pm. His Partner was injured while out in the garden and hurt her back. She was required to rest but did not require the attention of a Doctor. He stated that his daughter was at school some two miles from her home and that as his partner was injured he was required to collect her from the school bus. He phoned his Employer, the Respondent, and requested Force Majeure Leave for that day. This was refused in a letter dated 23^rd March 2016. He was advised to provide supporting medical evidence to support his application for Leave within five working days. He received a further letter dated 4^th May 2016 again requesting him to supply supporting documentation. The Complainant responded on 9^th May 2016 stating he had sought advice from the WRC in Carlow and had been advised he was entitled to the Leave. His application for the Leave was rejected by letter dated 13^th May 2016 and he was afforded annual leave to cover the 18^th March 2016

The Complainant works in a large building with some 700 employees working there. The Respondent has to deal with a large number of applications from employees for Force Majeure Leave and accordingly wishes to be satisfied that each application meets the requirements of the Act. Therefore it is reasonable that the Respondent should require reasonable proof to support a claim. The Respondent’s Employee Guide at point 2.3 sets out that while the Company may not normally require an employee to furnish corroborative evidence in support of an application, the Company reserves the right to seek such evidence in circumstances where they believe it is not fully justified.

The Complainant was afforded all opportunities to provide the information requested but he refused to do so. He was required to provide either medical evidence or other evidence that his presence was indispensable in respect of his partner’s illness. His contention that he was required to collect his daughter from school is questionable as according to Departmental guidelines schools in the state were off on the day following St Patrick’s Day in 2016 and re-open on 4^th April 2016.

His application is very similar to a near identical application in 2014 where he cites his partner injured her back in the garden and he had to take care of her. This the Respondent stated afforded the Complainant an unbroken weekend of 4 days. In that instance he did submit certification.

The Respondent refused his application for Force Majeure Leave. He was afforded annual leave to cover the day.

Section 13 (1) of the Parental Leave Act, 1998 provides as follows: “An employee shall be entitled to leave with pay from his or her employment, to be known and referred to in this Act as “force majeure leave”, where, for urgent family reasons, owing to an injury or illness of a person specified in subsection (2), the immediate presence of the employee at the place where the person is, …..is indispensable”

The Complainant’s partner is a person specified in subsection (2). The Complainant applied for Force Majeure Leave for 18th March 2016. The Complainant was requested to supply supporting documentation/evidence that his presence at his home where his partner had allegedly been injured while working in the garden, was indispensable. The evidence shows that in an exchange of correspondence between the Complainant and the Respondent the Complainant refused to supply any evidence to support his application that his presence was indispensable. I note his application for this leave states that his presence was required to look after his partner while at the Hearing he also stated that he was required to collect his daughter from the school bus some two miles away, however this reason was not stated in his application for the Leave.

I find that the Act is quite clear that because of an injury or illness the presence of the employee is indispensable at the place where that person is. I find that it is reasonable for an employer to request an employee to provide supporting evidence to support the application especially in circumstances where the Complainant did provide such evidence in 2014 when he applied for Force Majeure Leave to again support his partner following an injury in the garden.

In accordance with Section 41 (5) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 I declare this complaint is not well founded. The Complainant did not supply supporting documentation or evidence to his Employer or to the Hearing to support his application.

Force Majeure Leave