WRC held that force majeure leave was wrongly refused where an employee’s husband suffered a sudden medical emergency, and that the resulting non-payment of wages breached the Payment of Wages Act.

The Complainant stated that he commenced employment with the Respondent in April 2024 as a crèche worker. He explained that one morning in March 2025 his husband collapsed and was taken to hospital by ambulance with a suspected heart attack, requiring his immediate presence. He informed his manager that he would be absent and would provide updates. He later advised that his husband required surgery and that he was under significant stress and anxiety during this period, as his husband was seriously ill and out of work, leaving them financially dependent on his wages. Upon his return, he sought force majeure leave for three days in March 2025 and provided a cardiology letter confirming hospitalisation. He contended that the refusal of force majeure leave was unfair and that the Respondent breached the Payment of Wages legislation by withholding pay for those days.

The Respondent stated that it reviewed the Complainant’s application in accordance with the statutory criteria and concluded that the request did not satisfy the legislative requirements. The Director confirmed that the hospital letter merely indicated that the Complainant’s husband was an inpatient but did not provide sufficient detail demonstrating that the Complainant’s immediate presence was indispensable or that the absence arose from a qualifying urgent medical emergency. The Respondent maintained that the Complainant failed to furnish adequate supporting evidence establishing entitlement under s.13 of the Parental Leave Act. It asserted that its decision was made objectively and consistently with the legislation and internal procedures. The Respondent further contended that, as the statutory criteria were not met, the leave could not be categorised as force majeure and therefore payment for the relevant dates was not due.

The Adjudicating Officer considered the statutory test under s.13(1) of the Parental Leave Act, namely whether the absence was (i) urgent and (ii) whether the employee’s immediate presence was indispensable. Having reviewed the evidence, the Adjudicator found the Complainant to be a credible and honest witness who provided consistent and compelling testimony. It was accepted that the Complainant’s husband suffered a sudden collapse, was taken to hospital by ambulance with a suspected heart attack, underwent surgery, and remained hospitalised. The Adjudicator accepted that the circumstances constituted a sudden and unforeseeable medical emergency and that the Complainant’s presence at the hospital was indispensable. It was further noted that the Complainant kept the Respondent informed and subsequently provided medical confirmation. In those circumstances, the refusal of force majeure leave was found to be unjustified. The non-payment of wages for the relevant dates therefore amounted to a breach of the Payment of Wages Act, and the complaint was upheld.

Employers should:                

• Approach force majeure leave requests with a clear understanding of the statutory criteria, particularly the requirement that the event be urgent, unforeseeable, and that the employee’s immediate presence be indispensable. 
   
  
• Ensure that policies expressly outline the documentation required while also allowing managerial discretion in emergency scenarios. Where an employee reports a sudden hospitalisation or life-threatening medical event involving a close family member, employers should provisionally grant leave subject to later verification, rather than refuse outright.  
   
  
• Ensure line managers are trained in statutory leave entitlements and compassionate handling of crisis situations. Refusals should be reasoned, proportionate, and legally grounded.

The full case can be found here.