Worker

Employer

Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

An employee

A policing service

Representatives

Ciaran O'Neill A Representative Association

Employee Relations Bureau

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 - 00002579

01/05/2024

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The worker was suspended with pay from August 2004 until September 2006 while an investigation was undertaken. He returned to work having been fully exonerated. However, he was told that he was not entitled to annual leave until the new leaf year began in April 2007.

At the time he accepted that version of events but when making pre-retirement preparations he initiated a complaint seeking to have his leave entitlement relating to that period returned to him.  He submitted that he was entitled to annual leave for the period of his suspension and also for the days that have been carried forward up to that date of suspension.

The worker is seeking to have 90 days leave from that time assigned to him.

The employer submitted that the worker did not seek to take a complaint between the date of his return in September 2006 until October 2023. He could have taken a grievance but did not do so.

The employer noted that if the complainant had taken this complaint under an employment rights framework, it would now be out of time.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

This dispute revolves around a series of events that occurred between 2004 and 2007. Both parties are in agreement that the worker had a right to annual leave. The worker asserts that he was informed at the time that he had no right to annual leave following his exoneration and return to duty.

The dispute revolves around the assertion that the worker was informed by a Senior Officer, who was the granting authority for annual leave, in September 2006 that he was not entitled to annual leave.

The employer submitted that at all material times from 2006 onwards, it was open to the worker to take a grievance regarding this decision. He did not do so. He took his grievance in October 2023 when the Senior Officer referred to was no longer working with the employer.

The employer noted that no written records can be found relating to the time period in question. Employer noted that if the worker had taken a case under employment rights legislation he would be out of time. 

The employer noted that its Dispute Resolution Procedures were introduced on 1 February 2020 and that the worker attempted to avail of this procedure on 18 March 2024. The dispute resolutions procedures encompass any ‘standard employment relations issue’ and on 8 April the worker was advised that a grievance of such antiquity was not a ‘standard employment relations issue’ and could therefore not be heard in the dispute resolution procedures.

The employer suggested that the worker bypassed the only reasonable applicable dispute procedures namely those of the code and that this was not cured by the attempt to refer the matter under the DRP in March 2024.

The employer Is seeking a recommendation that it should take no further action in respect to the workers grievance.

The employer submitted a copy of the preface to the 5th edition, Volume 1 of the governing code. I note that it contains the following reference: “While efforts have been made to legislate for as many eventualities as possible, modern policing requires personal judgement and decision making on a regular basis. I suggest that generally, and particularly in those instances which are not legislated for in this volume of the … code, you should be mindful of the vision “ (of the employer)

What the DRP has concluded that this dispute does not fall within the definition of a standard employment relations issue, it seems to be provided for in the preface to the code dated August 2005.

This dispute is not, to my mind, a standard employment relations issue.  Accordingly, my suggestion is that this matter should be looked at in the spirit of the governing code, rather than under the letter of the DRP.  In that regard, my recommendation is that the matter be looked at again on a local basis by both parties with a view to resolving something that is “not legislated for”.

The absence of documentation goes to both the workers version, and to the employer’s version of events.  At the very least it can be agreed that the worker did not receive his annual leave entitlement during the period of his suspension, and this might be a useful starting point for local discussions.

Industrial Relations Act – Annual leave while under investigation – totally exonerated – accrued leave issue – non standard employment relations issue – look to the matter in the spirit of, rather than the letter of the code.