ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00063717

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Mr Adam Collins	Peterson Manufacturing Ltd

Representatives

Self-Represented

Complaint:

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Sick Leave Act 2022	CA-00077711-001	18/11/2025

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 19/06/2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eileen Campbell

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint. The hearing was conducted in person in Lansdowne House.

While the parties are named in the Decision, I will refer to Mr Adam Collins as “the Complainant” and to Peterson Manufacturing Ltd as the “the Respondent”.

The Complainant attended the hearing and he presented as a litigant in person. Mr Derek Kehoe Accounts & Admin Manager attended on behalf of the Respondent together with Mr David Lewis Paint Line Supervisor presenting as litigants in person.

I explained the procedural changes arising from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v. An Adjudication Officer, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 in April 2021. No application was made that the hearing be heard other than in public. The parties agreed to proceed in the knowledge that a decision issuing from the WRC would disclose identities. Evidence was given on oath and the parties were afforded the opportunity to cross-examine.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties under statute. I can confirm I have fulfilled my obligation to make all relevant inquiries into this complaint.

No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the complaint were raised at any stage of the proceedings.

Both parties confirmed at close of hearing that they had been provided with the opportunity to present their respective cases and had nothing further to add.

The Complainant confirmed he had received a fair hearing of his complaint.

Background:

This matter came before the Workplace Relations Commission dated 18/11/2025. The Complainant alleges a contravention by the Respondent of provisions of the above listed statute in relation to his employment with the Respondent. The aforesaid complaint was referred to me for investigation. A hearing for that purpose was scheduled to take place on 19/06/2026.

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 11/07/2025 with such employment terminating by way of dismissal on 17/11/2025.

The Complainant at all material times was employed as a Powder Coater. The Complainant was paid €812.00 gross per week for which he worked 40 hours.

The Respondent is a structural steel specialist engaged in engineering, manufacturing and fabrication projects.

It is the Complainant’s case that he was penalised for having exercised his rights under the Sick Leave Act 2022 by being unlawfully terminated.

The Respondent denies this allegation in its entirety.

Both parties filed submissions together with supporting documentation in advance of hearing for which I am grateful. The Respondent was invited to file a supplemental submission in order to provide clarification on a question asked in cross-examination by the Complainant which was duly received and considered.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

CA-00077711-001

As per WRC complaint form

On the 13th and 14th of November which was a Thursday and Friday I was off sick from work, I emailed my sick note to Derek my Payroll Officer the 14th covering the 2 days. When I returned back to work on Monday I noticed on my payslip (because I get my payslips every Monday generally) I had not been given my sick pay which I was entitled to because I have been at that place of work for 19 weeks as of that time. I then proceeded to investigate the matter with Derek but he wasn’t in his office and so I went back on the floor to continue to work and about 20 to 30 minutes after I was approached by my manager in which he gave my letter of dismissal I ask him for a reason why but he said it was up to Derek (payroll) and higher up, I then went back into Derek’s office but he was there this time and asked him why was I being terminated and he then said it wasn’t up to him but up to Chris the my manager who I was just talking to. I then went to his Office and to try and plead my case and ask for a reason why I was being terminated but he couldn’t give me any reason for it. The fact that I was off sick leads Thursday and Friday then following up to Monday, Not getting paid my entitlement of sick pay and then continuing to be terminated on no grounds or good reason has me to conclude I have been unlawfully terminated which the Sick Leave Act of 2022 protects me.

The Complainant gave evidence on oath. Where relevant to my decision this evidence is referred to in the findings and conclusions section

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

CA-00077711-001

Overview of written submission

The contract of employment provided for a six-month probationary period. it is accepted the Complainant was absent on sick leave 14 / 15 December and submitted a medical certificate. It is accepted that the statutory entitlement was not initially included in payroll and the omission was identified, corrected and paid. During the probation period concerns arose regarding work quality, housekeeping standards and production processes. Management retained photos and records during August and September showing issues in the production area which pre-date the sickness absence in November.

The Respondent witness Mr Kehoe gave evidence on affirmation. Where relevant to my decision this evidence is referred to in the findings and conclusions section.

Findings and Conclusions:

CA-00077711-001

In conducting my investigation and in reaching my decision, I have reviewed all relevant submissions and supporting documentation presented to me by the parties. I have carefully considered the oral evidence adduced at hearing. I deemed it necessary to make my own inquiries into the complaint during hearing to establish and understand the facts and to seek clarification on certain matters.

I am obliged to draw my conclusions from the facts as presented to me and by the application of the law to those said facts whilst taking into account all other relevant factors and surrounding circumstances. The role of the Adjudication Officer is to decide the case before him/her, resolving conflicts in evidence according to the direct evidence presented at hearing.

Where the evidence of the parties differs greatly and cannot be reconciled findings are made on the balance of probabilities. In my decision-making role I am constrained both by statute and by precedent.

The Relevant Law – Sick Leave Act 2022 – Protection of employees from penalisation

*Protection of employees from penalisation*
		*12.* (1) An employer shall not penalise or threaten penalisation of an employee for proposing to exercise or having exercised his or her entitlement to statutory sick leave.
		(2) If a penalisation of an employee, in contravention of subsection (1), constitutes a dismissal of the employee within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2015, relief may not be granted to the employee in respect of the penalisation both under this Act and under those Acts.
		(3) In this section, “penalisation” means any act or omission by an employer or a person acting on behalf of an employer that affects an employee to his or her detriment with respect to any term or condition of his or her employment, and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, includes—
		(a) suspension, lay-off or dismissal (including a dismissal within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2015), or the threat of suspension, lay-off or dismissal,
		(b) demotion or loss of opportunity for promotion,
		(c) transfer of duties, change of location of place of work, reduction in wages or change in working hours,
		(d) imposition or the administering of any discipline, reprimand or other penalty (including a financial penalty), and
		(e) coercion or intimidation.

The Relevant Facts

At the outset it is necessary to establish if there has been a protected act and the second requirement is the Complainant must have suffered a detriment as a result of proposing to exercise or having exercised his entitlement to statutory sick leave. The penalisation alleged is that the Complainant was dismissed.

It was explained to the unrepresented Complainant that in this case, I am not investigating whether the dismissal was unfair in and of itself. I have to consider if the dismissal came about as a result of the Complainant exercising his entitlement to statutory sick leave as alleged.

In claims of unfair dismissal, the general position is that the burden of proof rests on the employer to demonstrate that the dismissal was not unfair. However, where a complaint is grounded in an allegation of penalisation, the evidential burden shifts, and the employee must establish the requisite causal connection between the exercising of his rights under the Sick Leave Act 2022 and the dismissal.

The concept of causation was explained to the Complainant in terms of the “but for” test. It is well established this is a causation test requiring a clear nexus between the exercising of his right to statutory sick leave and the penalisation / dismissal.

In this regard I am guided by the seminal case of Paul O’ Neill v. Toni and Guy Blackrock Ltd (2010) 21 ELR 1.

The Toni and Guy case firmly establishes the “but for” test as it is generally referred to in penalisation cases and provides as follows where the Labour Court gave consideration to what is required in order to establish the burden of proof:

“…the detriment giving rise to the complaint must have been incurred because of, or in retaliation for, the Claimant having committed a protected act…where there is more than one causal factor in the chain of events leading to the detriment complained of the commission of a protected act must be an operative cause in the sense that “but for” the Claimant having committed the protected act he or she would not have suffered the detriment.This involves a consideration of the motive or reasons which influenced the decision maker in imposing the impugned detriment.”

I note that the Court has stated that where there is more than one causal factor in the chain of events leading up to the dismissal or other adverse treatment, the commission of the protected act must be an operative cause of the alleged adverse treatment

There is no dispute between the parties that the dismissal occurred. However, the reason for the dismissal is disputed by the parties.

It is not in dispute the Complainant was dismissed by correspondence dated 17 November 2025. It is not in dispute the Complainant had submitted a medical certificate setting out that he was unable to attend work on 13 and 14 November 2025.

I am satisfied the Complainant exercised his entitlement to statutory sick leave when he emailed the Respondent on 14 November attaching the cert and checking that he would be paid for the days. I am satisfied the aforesaid email asking if he would be paid for the certified sick days constitutes a protected act. The aforesaid email of 14 November at 2.25pm sets out as follows:

“Hi Derek,

just letting you know I have my sick note covering the last two days.

I also want to check if these days will be paid, as I’m past the 20 week or so mark with the company now. Thanks for your help.

I note the Complainant submits at hearing there were never any issues raised directly with him about his performance and he further submits the photos opened to the hearing cannot reliably attribute the issues to him as there were multiple employees on the night shift and the photos do not demonstrate that he was responsible. I note the Complainant submits he got no warning.

Conversely, I note the Respondent submits the Complainant would have been fully aware of the issues as conversations took place as required.

Notwithstanding, it is the Complainant’s case that he was dismissed for exercising his entitlement to statutory sick leave. It is the Respondent’s position that the decision to dismiss had already been taken before the sick leave and I note the Respondent witness Mr Kehoe submits he (the Complainant) had been spoken to three or four times; that the re-work was costing them money; and he had said to him that they would have to find a new powder coater.

I note the Respondent submits they intended giving him the termination letter on 14 November but as the Complainant was on sick leave they were unable to do so.

I note the Respondent did not avail of the opportunity to cross-examine. The Complainant did avail himself of the opportunity and is so doing he requested that the Respondent provide proof that the termination letter had been drafted prior to the sick leave which was duly provided in post-hearing submissions.

It is evident that the termination letter had been created on 13 November at 12.32 and modified on 17 November as documented in the screenshot of the Windows file properties as provided by the Respondent post-hearing. I note the protected act took place on 14 November at 2.25 when the Complainant emailed the Respondent seeking confirmation that he would be paid and in so doing I am satisfied he exercised his entitlement to statutory sick leave.

It falls to me to determine whether or not there is a causal connection between the protected act and the penalisation of the Complainant.

It is clear from the chronology of the documents submitted that the Complainant’s dismissal was decided prior to the Complainant having exercised his entitlement to statutory sick leave. I am satisfied the drafting of the termination letter pre-dates the commission of the protected act.

For the reasons set out above I am unable to find the Complainant was penalised within the meaning of section 12 of the Sick Leave Act 2022.

Accordingly, I the complaint to be not well-founded.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

CA-00077711-001

For the reasons set out above I decide this complaint is not well-founded.

Dated: 28th July 2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eileen Campbell

Key Words: