Employee

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Airport Police Office

Airport Authority

Representatives

 none

none 

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00040001-001

23/09/2020

The Employee has been employed as an Airport Police Officer since 2000. The Employee has referred a complaint to the WRC claiming that he was moved to a less favourable sick pay scheme without prior notice or warning.  He has also referred a complaint claiming that the Employer has breached a collective agreement regarding occupational injury and sick leave benefits.

The Employee submits as follows:

On 28th November 2019 the Employee was called to a meeting where he was issued with a written sanction placing him on Sick Leave Scheme 2 which is less favourable than the scheme he had been on – Scheme 1.  He was not informed prior to, or during, the meeting that it was as formal disciplinary meeting and he was not afforded the right to have representation.

In the sanction letter, the Employee was informed that he would be invited a review meeting on 18th May 2020 but that this meeting has not taken place.

The Employee further submits that his Employer has breached a formal registered agreement (the Phase 2 Agreement) with regards to occupational injury and sick leave benefits in relation to an assault that occurred while the Employee was on duty.  The Employee asserts that as a direct result of him being on Scheme 2 restrictions, his Employer deducted his wages for his certified occupational sick leave contrary to the provisions of the Phase 2 Agreement.

The Employer submits as follows:

The Employee’s contract of employment clearly states: “It should be noted, however, that sick leave is a privilege and may be restricted or withdrawn”.  The decision to move the Employee to a lesser sick pay scheme was in accordance with the Employer’s Absence Management Policy and was entirely consistent with cases of a similar nature.  The Employer’s policy in relation to movement between various sick pay schemes is very clear and available for all employees to review on the company intranet. 

In 2019 there were 4 return to work meetings with the Employee, when his attendance levels were discussed.  The Employee was fully aware of that his attendance levels were unacceptably high and that he was at risk of having his sick leave privileges restricted. 

On 22nd January 202, following representations from the Employees’ union representative, the Chief Airport Police Officer advised the Employee that he had not been subjected to any investigatory/disciplinary process and that the decision to move him from Sick Leave Scheme 1 to Sick Leave Scheme 2 had been carried out in accordance with the terms of the Absence Management Policy following an Absence Review Meeting when it was pointed out the Employee that he had had 8 occasions of absence totalling 30 days in the previous 12 month period.

The Employer asserts that the Employee has no entitlement to be paid for the period 20th March to 7th April 2020 as the cause of his absence does not satisfy the criteria outlined in the Company/Union Phase 2 Agreement.

In relation to this dispute, I find as follows:

There are two separate aspects to the Employee’s claim: (i) the placing of the Employee on restricted sick leave privileges and (ii) the alleged breach of the Phase 2 Agreement.

In relation to the placing of the Employee on restricted sick leave privileges, I find that this was carried out in accordance with the Employer’s Absence Management Policy.  At the Adjudication Hearing, the Employer undertook that the Head of HR for Security would carry out a review meeting in accordance with the Employer’s letter of 28th November 2019 to the Complainant no later than 30th April 2021.

In relation to the matter of the alleged breach of the Phase 2 Agreement, I am of the view that the Employee is asking me to make a finding in relation to the correct interpretation of the provisions of a collective agreement.

Section 13(2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 provides a statutory restriction on the types of cases Adjudicators may hear. They may not investigate disputes connected with rates of pay, hours or times of work or annual holidays of a body of workers.

“Subject to the provisions of this section, where a trade dispute (other than a dispute connected with rates of pay of, hours or times of work of, or annual holidays of, a body of workers) exists or is apprehended and involves workers within the meaning of Part VI of the Principal Act, a party to the dispute may refer it to a rights commissioner.”

Accordingly, I find that I do not have the jurisdiction to deal with this matter.

I do not recommend in favour of the Employee.

Sick leave; interpretation of a collective agreement