LCR22469

FULL RECOMMENDATION

SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969

PARTIES :

CORK UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL

- AND -

A WORKER

DIVISION :

SUBJECT:

1.Non-approval of Parental Leave and related matters

BACKGROUND:

2.The Worker referred this case to the Labour Court on 7 May 2021 in accordance with Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.

A Labour Court remote hearing took place on 28 September 2021.


RECOMMENDATION:

It is the worker’s case that his employer refused to facilitate a request for parental leave and subjected him to ongoing harassment when he was absent on sick leave. The worker submitted that the employer did not follow its own procedures on attendance, parental leave, sick leave, and annual leave. As a result of the employer’s refusal to grant parental leave, the worker had to resign his position after seven years’ service in order to take care of his children. The worker wants the Court to acknowledge the alleged breaches of procedure that arose in his case and seeks compensation of one year’s salary as redress.

The employer disputes the worker’s complaints and is fully satisfied that it treated the worker in a fair and equitable manner at all times and had full regard to his contractual and statutory rights. The employer had ongoing engagement with the worker during his absence from work in line with the procedures in place. The worker never invoked the internal grievance procedure to address any complaints.

The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions made by both parties.

It is accepted that in October 2021 the worker applied to take a three-month block of parental leave which was declined for operational reasons. The HSE Guidelines on Terms and Conditions of Employment provides that Parental Leave may be postponed in certain specified circumstances, subject to the employee being permitted to take the leave within six months and subject to the employer consulting with the applicant before postponing the leave.

In this case, the worker was advised that a three-month block of leave could not be approved however a request for parental leave on a one-day a week basis could be facilitated, which would require a fresh application. The worker was separately advised to engage with occupational health in relation to his ongoing absence from work for a wrist injury and that his parental leave request could be revisited once an occupational health report issued.

The employer submitted that it intended to engage with the worker about deferring his parental leave application until March 2021, but accepts this engagement never happened, which it says was frustrated by the worker’s ongoing absence from work. The employer accepts that engagement with the worker on this matter could have been better and it is the Court’s view that the employer fell short in the application of its policy on parental leave which clearly states an employer should consult with an applicant before postponing a parental leave request.

The worker resigned his position in January 2021, effective from 30May 2021, and told the Court he did so because he was fed up with the way he was dealt with by his employer. It is accepted that he submitted a complaint under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, to the Workplace Relations Commission and the employer declined to attend on the basis that the worker had not invoked the internal grievance procedures to address his complaints. It is also accepted that on 3 March 2021 the employer wrote to the worker inviting him to avail of internal processes in place to address his complaints. The worker did not avail of this offer.

In response to questions from the Court, the worker said he was unaware of the internal grievance procedure prior to resigning and was never told about it by his line manager. The employer said the worker was fully aware of the grievance procedure through his contract of employment and induction training.

The Court has carefully considered the submissions made by both parties. This Court has consistently taken the view that internal mechanisms to address workplace disputes should be fully utilised by parties before external assistance is sought to resolve matters. In the circumstances of this case, it is highly regrettably that the worker chose not to avail of internal mechanisms in place to address his complaints before taking the decision to resign his employment. Had he done so, the concerns he raised at the Court hearing may well have been addressed to his satisfaction. However, he chose not to do this and instead chose to leave his employment.

In these circumstances, the Court does not see that an award of compensation is appropriate, and the worker’s claim is rejected.

The Court so recommends.

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David Campbell, Court Secretary.