Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Creche Worker

A Creche

Representatives

  Self- Represented

 Self - Represented

Act

Complaint

Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00070851-001

16/04/2025

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 10 April 2024 as a creche worker.

The Complainant states that his husband collapsed in the early hours of 13 March 2025 and was taken to hospital by ambulance with a suspected heart attack and his presence was required given the serious nature of the illness. The Complainant states that he informed his manager that he would not be in work the following day and would update them as soon as he had further information. The Complainant states that his husband had to have surgery on 18 March and he advised his manager that he would not be able to come in as he was needed in the hospital.  The Complainant states that he was under huge stress and anxiety at this time over the worry of his husband. He stated that his husband was out of work and very ill and they were dependant on the Complainant’s wages at that juncture.

The Complainant states that following on from this, he reached out to his manager and asked about force majeure leave to cover 13 March, 14 March and 18 March 2025. His manager directed him to discuss the matter FM (Director). The Complainant states that FM advised him that she reviewed his application in line with the legislation and was satisfied that he is not entitled to force majeure leave as he did not meet the criteria for same.

The Complainant states that he provided a letter from the cardiologist confirming that his husband was a patient at the hospital from 13 March until 21 March. The Complainant states that his request for force majeure was unfairly rejected. The Complainant states that at that time he was under enormous pressure. He states that he fulfilled the criteria for the leave and the Respondent is in breach of the Payment of Wages legislation by not paying him wages for 13, 14 and 18 March 2025.

The Respondent states that it reviewed the request for force majeure leave on behalf of the Complainant but that the request failed to meet the criteria set out in the legislation and therefore the request was refused.

The Director (FM) stated that the letter from the cardiology unit of the hospital dated 21 March 2025 merely stated that the Complainant’s husband was an inpatient of the cardiology department but the detail contained therein did not elicit information that satisfies the criteria for force majeure leave.

The Respondent states that the Complainant did not supply any evidence to demonstrate that there was an urgent medical emergency and in those circumstances the Complainant’s request for force majeure leave was denied as it did not meet the criteria set out in the legislation.

It is the Respondent’s position that it acted reasonably and lawfully in refusing the Complainant's request for Force Majeure Leave.

Force Majeure Leave, by definition, relates to illnesses/injuries with a sudden and immediate onset which could not be foreseen.

I note that the essential requirements as provided for in Section 13(1) of the Parental Leave Act which a person must satisfy in order to qualify for force majeure leave ((1) that the absence is urgent and (2) the immediate presence of the employee is indispensable).

The Respondent states that the Complainant did not supply any evidence to demonstrate that there was an urgent medical emergency and in those circumstances his request for force majeure leave was denied as it did not meet the criteria set out in the legislation.

Having carefully examined all of the evidence adduced in the within matter, I am satisfied that the Complainant has established that he met the criteria as set out in section 13 (1) of the Parental Leave Act in order to qualify for force majeure leave.  I found the Complainant to be an honest, credible witness who gave cogent and compelling testimony.

I note that the Complainant’s husband collapsed in early hours of 13 March and the Complainant called an ambulance given the serious nature of the incident. The Complainant’s husband was taken by ambulance to hospital with a suspected heart attack. I accept the evidence of the Complainant that his presence at the hospital was indispensable as he would need to be consulted on certain procedures that may be required. I note that the Complainant’s husband had surgery on 18 March and was hospitalised from 13 March until 21 March 2025. I am satisfied that the Complainant advised his manager about what had happened and provided updates. I also find that the Complainant applied for the leave in writing upon his return providing details and evidence in the form of a letter from the cardiology unit of the hospital.

In all of the circumstances, I find that the Complainant has demonstrated that there was a breach of the Payment of Wages Act by the Respondent in not paying the Complainant wages in respect of 13, 14 and 18 March 2025. I find that this complaint is well-founded.

I find that the within complaint is well founded. I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant his entitlement to 3 days wages in respect of 13, 14 and 18 March 2025.

Force majeure leave