A directive to pay a manager €7,000 was issued to a care provider, Komfort Kare, following a tribunal’s ruling that it was “completely unreasonable” to expect him to return to work the day after his wife had a miscarriage. The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) was informed that the company denied the employee’s request for a second day of force majeure leave, even after he reported that his wife was still dealing with significant haemorrhaging due to the termination of the pregnancy.
Based on a complaint made in connection with the Parental Leave Act of 1998, the WRC told the business that they were to provide the payout. The directions were published on Friday in response to a complaint by a manager.
On May 21st this year, the manager left work early to pick up his kids and accompany his wife to the Rotunda Hospital. She had reported at lunchtime that she was bleeding and concerned about the children’s care, as recorded by the WRC.
He informed his superior, CEO of Komfort Kare Brenda Kavanagh, at 7 pm that his wife was still in the emergency ward of the Rotunda Hospital in Dublin. He conveyed his doubts about being able to return to work the next day. The couple received confirmation of the pregnancy termination later that evening, which the employee relayed to the CEO via a text message when she inquired for an update.
The next morning, he emailed the CEO to communicate the tough situation of his wife’s miscarriage and thank her for the support, understanding and kind words she offered thus far. He requested his continued absence be recorded as force majeure leave, as he explained that his wife was not feeling well, they had to endure medical appointments and hospital visits, which he envisioned would be completed by May 24th.
The tribunal heard that the employee’s manager, Ms Kavanagh, extended her sympathies before informing him that force majeure only applies for a single day. She explained via email that the company policy, as advised by the HR consultancy Peninsula Business Services Ireland, permits force majeure leave only thrice a year and on separate instances. Instead, the CEO encouraged the complainant to categorise his absence as carer’s leave, which the employee refused, reasoning to the tribunal that the switch from paid leave to unpaid leave would strain his finances.
The employee, while providing evidence at the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), claimed he had thoroughly studied the related legislation and was confident he was legally entitled to three days of consecutive force majeure annual leave on full pay under such circumstances.
The company remained open to considering his application for force majeure leave if he provided a letter from the Rotunda, supporting his mentioned maternity issues and outlining the care and support needed, Ms Kavanagh informed him in a subsequent email. However, the employee found this requirement “intrusive” and submitted a sick note the following day while revealing to the tribunal that he remains on sick leave as of the hearing on July 12th.
Komfort Kare, represented by Roberta Urbon from Peninsula, refuted the alleged statutory breach, positing that force majeure leave is reserved for “exceptions when the employee’s immediate presence is required”.
Adjudicator David James Murphy declared that the business’s reasons for refusing the employee force majeure leave were “ambiguous” and “certainly inconsistent”. He noted the business’s early claim that it was unfeasible to take more than one day of leave at a time, which he deemed false. Nevertheless, this point seemed to persist in Ms Kavanagh’s considerations, he added.
In his judgment, the arbiter declared that while an employer is within their rights to corroborate reasons for an employee’s leave, Komfort Kare seemingly overstepped this boundary. The company appeared to have sought information regarding the care plan of the employee’s spouse in order to carry out their own assessment. The arbiter deemed this as an unsuitable request and supported the worker’s total justification in declining it.
The arbiter highlighted that the employee had met the stipulated notice prerequisites in his converse with Ms Kavanagh. He maintained that the accused was rightfully entitled to the compassionate leave that was denied to him on two occasions following his wife’s miscarriage. Thus, the arbiter substantiated the grievance.