Background:

The Worker was employed as a security officer for the Employer from 12 July 2005 until his resignation on 6 July 2023. The Worker was accused by a client of the Employer that the Worker may have allowed access by an unauthorised person to the client’s secure site. The Employer placed the Worker on paid suspension immediately and began to conduct an investigation. The Worker objected to the allegations raised and the investigatory process itself and refused to engage in the investigation. In response to this refusal, the Employer placed the Worker on unpaid suspension from 21 May 2022. The Worker referred the dispute to the WRC under the Industrial Relations Act 1969.

At adjudication, the Adjudication Officer recommended that the Worker engage with the investigation process as proposed by the Employer. The Worker appealed this recommendation to the Labour Court, and sought €30,000 in lost earnings arising from his unpaid suspension. The Employer submitted that it had acted properly in the circumstances and made an offer to appoint a different investigator to the investigation.

Outcome:

The Labour Court (Haugh, Marie and Treacy) did not accept that the worker was entitled to refuse cooperation with the investigation as it was constituted. The Court said if the Worker had objections, he should have raised them as part of the investigation process itself and the Employer’s dispute resolution processes if required. However, the Court also found that the Employer did not take sufficient steps to address the Worker’s concerns, and that they had not met the standards required for fair procedures. In light of this, the Court upheld the Worker’s complaint and recommended the Employer pay the worker €5,000 in compensation.

Practical Guidance for Employers:

Unpaid suspension is now an unusual step in most employment relationships, and if it is considered it must be done so for very good and specific reasons.

The full case is here:  https://www.workplacerelations.ie/wrc/en/cases/2024/february/lcr22902.html