Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A State Employee

A State Employer

Representatives

Mr O’Brien

Mr Harding

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 - 00003615

06/01/2025

The Worker alleges that in April 2022, The Employer did not comply with internal safety and health guidelines for pregnant members and their circulars.

The Employer denies all the assertions of the Worker and asks that no recommendation be made in light of their assertion that the matter has been addressed fully internally and the injury on duty decision was both reasonable and final and as such remedies sought are not within the gift of the Adjudicator.

Background

The Worker  submitted an industrial relations complaint to the WRC in July 2024 against the Employer. The complaint concerns the handling of a workplace incident that occurred in April 2022, when the worker was over seven months pregnant and assigned to light, non‑contact duties with the Employer.

Incident

On  April 19th, 2022, the worker received an abusive telephone call from a member of the public. After repeated shouting and refusal to provide information, the worker terminated the call.

Supervisory personnel subsequently informed the Worker  that the same individual had arrived on-site to make a complaint. Although visibly heavily pregnant, fatigued  and on non‑contact duties, the Worker  was repeatedly asked by a supervisor to meet the caller in person. The Worker initially refused due to safety concerns but eventually agreed under pressure.

During the meeting, the service user behaved aggressively and shouted at the worker. The Worker’s Supervisor left the room, leaving the worker alone with the agitated individual despite pregnancy‑related safety restrictions. The individual stood up suddenly and moved towards the Worker, causing the Worker  to retreat and physically ward the individual back in fear for personal and unborn child safety. The incident spilled into the hallway, prompting the supervisor to return.

Aftermath and Health Impact

The worker was extremely distressed and experienced a serious panic episode in the station car park. The worker immediately attended a maternity hospital and received medical advice not to return to work without guaranteed safety. GP consultations confirmed work‑related stress and advised the worker not to resume duty. Certified absence due to work‑related stress was issued in 04/2022 and 05/2022.

Reporting Attempts and Management Response

The worker attempted to make a formal statement regarding the alleged assault immediately afterward, but supervisors declined to take the statement.

The worker later reported the matter to the Superintendent’s office but was told no such incident had been recorded. The worker asserts multiple failures by management to act in accordance with:

o   Organisational Codes on the health and safety of pregnant personnel,

o   HQ Circulars relating to maternity protections and duty‑limitation,

o   Victims’ Charter requirements for victims of crime.

Subsequent Investigations and Processes

A public complaint by the caller led to an external disciplinary investigation under organisational regulations in October 2023, which fully exonerated the worker.

Internally, the worker pursued the organisation’s Dispute Resolution Procedure:

o   Stage 1 Dispute not upheld.

o   Stage 2: Decision that the matter was not suitable for the DRP.

o   Stage 3  :Dispute not upheld; no investigation undertaken, though a reminder to management about pregnancy‑related regulations was acknowledged as appropriate.

Work‑Related Stress   and Injury Classification Issues

The worker sought classification of the absence as an injury under the scheme which provides protections for injuries arising in the course of duty.

An investigation was initiated in May 2022, but no correspondence or follow‑up occurred for over a year. When the worker returned to work in May 2023, a new inspector began reviewing the matter, but the process remained incomplete, and not all relevant personnel were interviewed. It is asserted by the Worker that remarks made during the process were perceived by the worker as dismissive of pregnancy‑related concerns.

HR Decision and Legal Concerns

In July 2023, HR determined no injury had been identified and refused injury scheme  classification. The Worker  argues that Employer failed to account for pregnancy‑specific vulnerabilities and statutory protections. That the investigation was excessively delayed and procedurally defective and that the decision relied on English case law; inappropriate in Irish employment‑related matters.

Irish case law supports a broader interpretation of “personal injury” independent of whether the Worker was acting in an official capacity at the time. The worker highlights that there the Employer injury-scheme has no appeal mechanism injury  decisions, which is claimed to breach natural justice requirements.

Conclusion

The worker states that the employer failed to ensure safety obligations for pregnant personnel, mishandled the incident report, conducted flawed investigations, misapplied relevant legislation and codes, and failed to follow fair procedures in the management of the injury classification process.

The worker respectfully asks the WRC to find in favour of the Worker.

The Worker cited the following key cases in their submissions:

Gao v The Commissioner of An Garda Síochána [2018] IEHC 244

NL v International Protection Appeals Tribunal and Minister for Justice [2021] IEHC 430

Background

An incident occurred in in April 2022 involving a Worker and a member of the public. The Worker was pregnant at the time. After the incident, the worker went on sick leave citing work‑related stress and subsequently took their planned maternity leave.

Grievance Process

The Worker submitted two similar grievance forms in mid‑2024. The employer noted that parts of these grievances related to injury‑on‑duty benefit, which the employer stated falls outside the internal grievance procedure.

Stage 1: A senior officer heard the grievance in July 2024.

• The worker sought acknowledgment of the incident and an investigation.
• The officer decided that the matter had already been investigated as part of the injury‑on‑duty benefit application and did not uphold the grievance.

Stage 2: A more senior officer heard the grievance in October 2024.

• The worker repeated the request for an apology.
• The officer considered the grievance outside the scope of the procedure but initiated a separate operational fact‑finding review of the April 2022 incident.

Stage 3: A regional senior manager met the worker in November 2024.

• The worker again sought apologies from identified colleagues.
• The senior manager concluded that apologies are not an industrial relations remedy and did not uphold the grievance.
• The senior manager indicated that a reminder would issue to relevant personnel about health‑and‑safety obligations affecting pregnant colleagues.

A referral to the Workplace Relations Commission followed in January 2025.

Injury‑on‑Duty Benefit Process

The employer summarised the injury‑on‑duty benefit framework, which distinguishes between ordinary illness and injury sustained in the execution of duty.

A successful application would result in sick pay being restored or extended without affecting general public‑service sick‑leave limits.

The decision‑making process involves:

• an application to senior management,
• an investigation of the circumstances,
• and a management determination informed by medical opinion.

The internal guidance states that where any doubt exists, the matter is referred to a senior HR authority and medical advice is considered alongside the investigation file and management views.

Employer Position

The employer responds to the Worker’s complaints as follows:

Alleged breaches of safety protections for pregnant members

The employer denies any breach of safety guidelines and notes that no complaint was made under health‑and‑safety legislation. It emphasises that, despite the time elapsed since the incident, the worker’s concerns were reviewed by multiple senior managers.

 Request for apologies

The employer notes that the worker ultimately sought apologies from identified colleagues. The employer argues that apologies are not an industrial‑relations remedy and questions whether this aspect constitutes an industrial‑relations dispute within the meaning of the governing legislation.

Alleged failures to investigate operational matters

The employer submits that the WRC does not have jurisdiction to review operational policing decisions dating back several years.

Claim relating to victim‑of‑crime treatment

It states that a worker’s rights as a victim of crime are the same as any other person, and in any case that  is not a trade‑dispute matter.

Alleged failure to investigate work‑related stress

The employer states that an investigating officer contacted the worker and issued a report in August 2022.

The employer notes that the worker remained on maternity leave for an extended period and argues that, even if delay existed, it had no bearing on the eventual outcome, as the injury‑on‑duty benefit application was ultimately refused.

Injury‑on‑duty classification dispute

The employer states that the worker has not identified any specific procedural breach. It notes that:

• medical advice confirmed a causal link between the incident and the worker’s stress,
• but causation alone does not determine entitlement to injury‑on‑duty benefit. The employer argues that the relevant decision‑maker reasonably concluded the criteria for injury‑on‑duty benefit were not met.

Lack of an appeal mechanism

The employer confirms that the existing Code and Directive do not provide an appeal process for injury‑on‑duty benefit decisions. It notes that while a new policy is under development, it is not yet in place and the absence of such an appeal is a collective‑level issue, not an individual dispute suitable for WRC recommendation.

Employer’s Overall Position

The employer asks the Adjudication Officer to:

• make no recommendation regarding the 2022 incident,
• accept that operational decisions are outside the WRC’s remit,
• and find that the injury‑on‑duty decision was made reasonably following a fair process.
• It also argues that resource allocation and operational management fall within management discretion under established labour‑relations case law.

The Employer cited the following key cases in their submissions:

South Dublin County Council & A Worker LCR22749 (

Health Service Executive & Hooton LCR22840

An Garda Síochána & A Worker LCR23005

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 provides a statutory mechanism for the investigation of trade disputes by a WRC Adjudication Officer. The section applies only where a trade dispute exists or is apprehended, and it does not extend to complaints concerning statutory employment rights.

In accordance with section 13, the function of the Adjudication Officer in such matters is to investigate the dispute and, where it remains unresolved, to issue a recommendation setting out their opinion on the merits. Any recommendation issued under this section is not legally binding on either party. The statutory framework makes clear that the recommendation carries persuasive value only, and its implementation relies on the parties’ voluntary compliance.

It seems from the papers and the discussion at the hearing that there was insufficient regard given to the vulnerable status of the Worker at that time after a long shift of 12.5 hours that they would not be in a position to defend themselves in the face of an aggressive service user. In this, the Worker has been let down by the Employer, and it requires acknowledgement, but I do not believe that this extends as far as finding that there is a personal injury.

As to the implementation of the injury at work scheme, the scheme has statutory standing and while this may appear to be strange that it cannot be appealed; this is part of the binding contract between the parties  and the part of negotiations between the Employer and the collection of workers. It is not appropriate for me to address the  lack of appeal given its statutory nature and that it is already under negotiation as a collective industrial relations matter. I do not believe that the process followed lacked fairness but appears to stem from a multitude of factors including the absence of the Worker, for very good reasons, from the employment. In such circumstances they would not have been available to the Employer.

In conclusion, there is an issue around the experience of the Worker and the lack of regard for her safety during pregnancy and it is my conclusion is that there is nothing wrong with the guidelines in place, but the implementation of these at local rather than national level, may have required further expression and may still require the same.

I fully appreciate the demands placed on the service in a trying environment where a lapse may occur, but I have seen nothing that would lead me to conclude it is a systematic problem. I, therefore, see no value recommending a formal apology to the Worker in circumstances where it will lead to resentment and a breakdown in relationships further than they presumably have already been eroded.  I note from the hearing that the apology originally requested is no longer the issue and the Worker seeks compensation. The important issue at this point, is that locally the Worker’s experience is avoided wherever possible.

To that end my first recommendation is that the Employer adds to the work done already in increasing awareness of the guidelines, nationally to ensure all department leads understand their roles and responsibilities. I don’t believe the Employer will have  any difficulty  with that recommendation.

In relation to the experience of the Worker on the events concerned, I do see that she has been let down, in those circumstances. I don’t believe the delay in resolving the matter  was in any way malicious on the part of the Employer and the breach appears to be a local breach in the manner of health and safety, which is  not before me. The following processes do not appear out of line given the nature of the employment and circumstances peculiar to it. In those circumstances, I do not see monetary compensation as appropriate and recommend to the parties, in full and final settlement,  that the Worker receive an additional 3-days annual leave on a once off basis to be discharged at their  discretion over the years 2026 and 2027.

Pregnancy‑related workplace safety,  Operational decision‑making and WRC jurisdiction,   Maternity protections in frontline services