ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969

Investigation Recommendation Reference:  IR - SC - 00004158

Parties:

Dispute:

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Date of Hearing:             15/10/2025

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended)following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute.

Background:

The Worker referred a dispute he had with his Employer regarding taking annual leave.

Summary of Workers Case:

The Worker contends that on 7 February 2025, he sought to apply for a week annual leave from 9 March 2025.  He said he was told to come back as the lady in the office was o compassionate leave.  He wanted to also enquire about time off in lieu and whether he could use that toil.  He came back on 20 February to log his toil and apply for annual leave.  He was told on 26 February that his leave was denied.  He had already booked his flight and accommodation which were not refundable so he went on the leave. When he came back, he was brought in to an investigation meeting and was told this was a misconduct issue.  He was given a final written warning and was told he could appeal.  But due to being ill, he missed the deadline for appeal by one day and the Employer denied his right due to missing the deadline.  He resigned his employment on 28 May 2025 as he could no longer tolerate the treatment he was given.  He went to another job in June 2025.

Summary of Employer’s Case:

The Employer denies that the Worker came enquiring about annual leave on 7 February.  The first the Manager knew about it was on 20 February and due to a work requirement with the Client, the Worker could not be released.  He was told this, but he said he was going anyway.  He acted in breach of procedures by not applying in the first place, through Bright HR giving the required notice, and secondly by absenting himself from the Workplace without authorisation.  The employee Handbook specifically tells staff not to book flights or holidays without first getting approval for leave.   He was told he had 5 working days to appeal and he did not meet the deadline.

Conclusions:

During the course of the consideration of this dispute, many allegations and counter allegations and rebuttals were made by the parties.  It is regrettable that with over 5 years service with the Employer, the employment ended in some acrimony.  However, the net dispute being investigated in this instant case, is the manner in which the issue of annual leave was dealt with by both parties.     I have considered the picture presented by the Worker regarding the 7 February 2025 and I conclude that he likely wished to consult with the Admin person in the office who keeps account of TOIL and annual leave.  I do not conclude that he applied for or gave notice of his request for annual leave on that date.  I find that he indicated his request on 20 February and his Manager told him he may not be cleared to go.  When the Manager contacted the Client, he discovered the Worker could not, in fact be released at the time and the annual leave was denied. 

I note that the Worker, having been informed that his annual leave was not approved, went ahead and took the leave.  This resulted in a charge against him and a final written warning.  I note that the Employer followed procedures and the Employer’s emphasis on process is understandable where there are a large number of employees and requirements to fulfil clients ‘contracts.

However, I note that the Employer did not allow an extension to the 5 working days and I find this to have been harsh, especially when the Worker was on sick leave.

I conclude that there were elements of unfairness on both sides.

Recommendation:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

To resolve this dispute and recognising that the Worker is no longer in the employment, I recommend that the Employer offers and the Worker accepts a token payment of €500 to close the matter.

Dated:   12/12/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Key Words: