WRC Rules on Sick Pay Scheme and Penalisation Claim
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:
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
