WRC Rules on Sick Pay Scheme and Penalisation Claim

June 13, 2025

When “Better Than Statutory” Really Matters

A recent Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) decision offers valuable insights for employers operating company sick pay schemes — particularly those that are more generous than the statutory minimum. The case also serves as a timely reminder of the importance of clearly defined policies and robust communication when managing employee absence and disciplinary action.


The Case at a Glance

An employee of McDermott Laboratories Limited (trading as Viatris) lodged a complaint under the Sick Leave Act 2022, claiming he was penalised after exercising his rights under the Act. However, the company raised a key preliminary issue: that the Act did not apply because their internal Sick Pay Scheme was more favourable than the statutory scheme.


The WRC adjudicator agreed — and ultimately ruled that she had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint under the Sick Leave Act.


Statutory Sick Leave vs Company Sick Pay

The case turned on the interpretation of Section 9 of the Sick Leave Act 2022, which states that the Act does not apply to employers who provide a more favourable sick pay scheme.

Here’s how the two schemes compared:

Statutory Sick Leave vs Company Sick Pay

Despite the waiting period, the Adjudicator was satisfied that the employer's scheme, viewed as a whole, was significantly more favourable.


Jurisdiction Denied

Because the company scheme exceeded the statutory minimum, the WRC Adjudicator ruled she was precluded from considering the claim under the Act. This effectively dismissed the complaint before the substantive penalisation claim could be evaluated.


What About the Penalisation Allegation?

Although the case was closed on jurisdictional grounds, the Adjudicator still examined the penalisation claim.


The employee alleged he was penalised after receiving calls from occupational health on the day of a surgery, and that his father contacted the company on his behalf. That call was reportedly viewed as threatening, and the employee subsequently received a formal written warning, which also referenced a missed occupational health appointment.


The adjudicator found:

• The company’s Sick Pay Policy clearly allowed for medical referrals and outlined potential disciplinary consequences for non-compliance.

• The disciplinary action taken was based on policy breaches — not retaliation for exercising rights.

• Therefore, even if the Act had applied, the penalisation claim was not well-founded.


At MSS The HR People, we help employers design, update, and defend workplace policies that meet statutory requirements and go beyond, when needed. Whether you're reviewing your sick pay arrangements or responding to a grievance or disciplinary matter, our team can help you navigate it with clarity and confidence.



Contact us for more information: info@mssthehrpeople.ie Ph: 018870690 

The 2026 Minimum Wage Increase — What It Means for Small Businesses and How to Get Ready
By Tara Daly October 22, 2025
The increase to €14.15 per hour will have a noticeable effect on small and medium sized businesses.
WRC Award €22k for Dismissal Regarding Sexually Explicit Texts
By Tara Daly October 14, 2025
A recent Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) ruling has once again reinforced one of the most important principles in employment law.
Thousands of ChatGPT Conversations Available Online
By Tara Daly October 14, 2025
With over 100,000 chats searchable online exposing private info, here's why employers need clear AI policies, training, and safeguards to protect sensitive data.
Budget 2026: What It Means for Employers and SMEs
By Tara Daly October 14, 2025
While there are some positive measures many SMEs will feel extra pressure from wage and pension changes taking effect in 2026.
Auto-Enrolment Update: November 2025 Payroll Deadline
By Tara Daly October 1, 2025
Ireland’s new Auto-Enrolment pension scheme, My Future Fund, is edging closer and the timeline has just shifted again. Employers now need to act sooner than expected
By Tara Daly September 3, 2025
What Employers Need to Know
By Tara Daly September 3, 2025
In this blog, we explore a recent WRC ruling where a school was ordered to pay €85,000 in compensation after a teacher was discriminated against during an interview. The case highlights how even seemingly harmless remarks can have serious legal consequences for employers. What Actually Happened? Employee, Emily Williams, who had been working at the school under fixed-term contract and had two years’ experience there, was on maternity leave when a permanent teaching post arose. She was neither notified nor considered, even though she was eligible. Instead, the school awarded the role to a less-experienced colleague not on leave. During a subsequent interview for a fixed-term position, the principal congratulated Williams on the birth of her baby and added: “You really should enjoy every moment at home with the baby.” Williams felt the comment was unprofessional and likely influenced the outcome against her as she had learned she was unsuccessful the very next day. Why the WRC Ruled It Was Discrimination The WRC adjudicator found that: The principal’s comment, made before scoring was complete, was inappropriate and highlighted Williams’ family status. The school could not justify why a less-experienced teacher was chosen. Their claim that it was based on prior interview scores was unsupported, with no clear process to back it up. One interviewer even adjusted a score for Williams downward without explanation, further undermining the credibility of the decision. Given these failures, the WRC concluded that Williams had established a clear case of discrimination on grounds of family status. She was awarded €85,000 in compensation, with the adjudicator stressing the importance of deterrence in cases like this. Why This Ruling Matters for Employers This case underscores three vital lessons for HR and hiring managers. First, keep personal matters out of formal interviews. Even a well-meaning comment can suggest bias or influence the panel. The interview must remain strictly professional. Second, ensure documentation and process are watertight. Reliable scoring systems, consistent policies, and clear records are essential. Without them, hiring decisions become legally and reputationally vulnerable. Finally, fairness must be more than form, it must be function. Interviews should be blind to protected statuses such as family or maternity, and all decisions must be transparent and defensible. How MSS The HR People Can Help MSS is here to help Irish businesses avoid situations like this: Designing discrimination-safe interview processes, from structuring interview panels to defining scoring metrics Training hiring panels on unconscious bias and employment equality legislation Developing clear recruitment communication policies that avoid risks around maternity or other protected characteristics Providing support and representation if a dispute arises before the WRC  Let’s ensure recruitment is fair, transparent, and free of unintended prejudice. Reach out to MSS The HR People, and we’ll help you build safe, compliant hiring practices. MSS The HR People info@mssthehrpeople.ie Ph: 01 8870690
By Tara Daly September 3, 2025
WRC Finds Dismissal Unfair When Employer Fails to Engage
By Tara Daly September 2, 2025
Every business needs solid HR support, that support doesn’t have to be an all-or-nothing affair, a flexible, scalable HR service can assist in your companies growth.
Three Tips to Improve Your Recruitment Process
By Tara Daly August 12, 2025
Lets explore how Irish employers can streamline hiring processes through technology, compliant CV screening, targeted advertising, and a strong employer brand.