WRC held that the employee’s request for 3 days’ Force Majeure leave did not meet the statutory test, as his wife was already under hospital care, and the complaint was not well founded.

The Complainant stated that in January 2025 his wife suffered a serious fall, and doctors informed him she required emergency surgery. Following surgery, she was unable to feed herself, drive, or manage basic daily tasks, and required constant care. He explained that, as her sole caregiver, his presence was essential for 3 days in January, while treatment options and recovery remained uncertain. He applied for Force Majeure leave, which he believed covered such circumstances, but his employer refused, granting him only one day’s pay as a goodwill gesture. The Complainant highlighted that a colleague had been granted three days’ Force Majeure leave in similar circumstances and felt he had been treated less favourably. His payslip later reflected a deduction for the days he was absent, causing further distress. He maintained that no support was offered through an employee assistance programme and his appeal to HR was disregarded.

The Respondent disputed the complaint. It confirmed the Complainant (a night delivery driver employed since 2015) had requested three days’ Force Majeure leave after his wife fell and was hospitalised. Management reviewed the request with HR and decided that only one day qualified. They explained that the Force Majeure entitlement under s.13(1) of the Parental Leave Act must meet the tests of urgency, foreseeability, and indispensability on a day-by-day basis. Since the complainant’s wife was in the continuous care of hospital staff, they concluded the urgency and indispensability elements no longer applied after the first day. The Respondent added that other leave types, such as carers’ leave or medical care leave, were more appropriate once she was discharged and required ongoing assistance. They pointed out that another employee had been granted three days’ leave in wholly different circumstances abroad, where his wife was left without support in a foreign country following emergency surgery.

The Adjudicating Officer found that while his support was understandable, his wife was already under hospital care, meaning his presence, though comforting, was not “urgent, unforeseeable, and indispensable” as required under s.13(1) of the Parental Leave Act. Case law, including Thermo King v Nolan and Caroline Giles v Outhaus, confirmed that leave must be assessed day-by-day and applies only when all statutory criteria are met. The Adjudicator found that only the first day might arguably qualify, but overall, the Respondent applied the law correctly. The complaint was not well founded.

Employers should:                

• Approach requests for Force Majeure leave with careful reference to the statutory test. Namely, the employee’s presence must be urgent, unforeseeable, and indispensable. The entitlement is assessed day by day, not as a block of time, and only applies when all three conditions are met.  
  
• Show sensitivity and flexibility in dealing with employees facing family emergencies. Even where Force Majeure leave is not legally applicable, alternatives such as annual leave, carer’s leave, or unpaid leave should be explored promptly.  
  
• Explain decisions in writing with reference to the statutory criteria, and employees should be reminded of other supports available (e.g. Employee Assistance Programmes).

The full case can be found here.