A ruling by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) has granted a payout of over £1,400, equivalent to three weeks’ salary, to an employee who was penalised after he fell sick post a caution against nonattendance. This judgement constitutes only the second instance of an employer seen to be infringing the Sick Leave Act – a legislation taking effect from the dawn of 2023 and still in the process of implementation.
The employee in question worked as a customer service advisor on a per-hour wage of £12.70 at an anonymous provider of services to the financial industry. During the proceedings, he revealed that he received a verbal reprimand in September 2023 due to a series of unexpected absences from his job that year. He attributed his non-presence to either his own health issues or those of his family members.
He further mentioned falling severely ill with an illness mirroring flu-like symptoms on October 12th, 2023 at his workplace and consequently being absent from work for one and a half days. He submitted a medical certificate to his employer and claimed his statutory sick pay under the Sick Leave Act. Following this, his employer sanctioned him, and a written warning was issued. This caution was later confirmed during an internal review.
The firm’s stance was that the worker had missed work six times in the course of ten months, totalling 11.5 days absence, which it considered as “significantly high” absence levels and “over the line of what is regarded as satisfactory attendance”. It justified its right to discipline the worker during the hearing, noting that “poor punctuality” and “unauthorised absence” were classified as disciplinary offenses in its policies. The company reiterated its strict adherence to fair practices and the relevant statutory code, denying any violation of the Sick Leave Act.
Citing the aforementioned legislation, the worker, representing himself, argued that any individual utilising the statutory scheme should be treated “as though they had not been absent”. He further claimed that he was penalised for exercising his rights under the Sick Leave Act when his employer issued the warning.
The WRC’s verdict was entirely anonymised due to its connection with a concurrent Industrial Relations Act grievance, which was obliged to be conducted in private. The employee was only referred to as “Mr F” and the employer denoted as a “service provider to financial services”.
Arbitrator Emer O’Shea granted €1,428.75, the equivalent of three weeks’ salary, for the infraction. This marks only the second occasion where an employee has triumphed in a claim under the fresh legislation.