Suspensions at work have long been a source of contention, often finding their way to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), the Labour Court and eventually to the superior courts. Indeed, the topic recently returned to the headlines, when both of the representative bodies for the majority of the State’s serving Gardai demanded a review of their organisation’s practices in this area. This demand follows on from a 2025 case where the WRC held – in a determination upheld by the Labour Court - that a Garda had been treated ‘extremely unfairly’ during his two-year suspension, as his employer ignored its own suspension policy whilst also applying it in a way that was deemed to be ‘totally unreasonable’ (ADJ-00052010 & LCR23176). 

In recent years, HR and industrial relations practitioners have observed the aforementioned authorities issue precedent-setting determinations on a range of points and principles associated with workplace suspensions. A common conundrum facing employers is whether to suspend an employee pending an investigation or whether to allow them to continue working whilst the investigation is underway. Addressing the pay component of suspensions has also exercised many minds and has occasionally necessitated third-party judgements.

First Cases
One of the first high profile cases on the subject to surface came before the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT - the WRC’s predecessor) in 2013 - Smith v Royal Sun Alliance (RSA) (UD1673/2013). In this instance, Smith - the former RSA Chief Executive was (publicly) suddenly suspended for alleged financial irregularities. In its assessment, the Tribunal was satisfied that from a very early stage in the investigation, Smith’s fate was determined, as reflected in the public nature of the suspension and the manner in which allegations were put to him during the investigation and disciplinary processes. Notably, the Tribunal held that it was unnecessary to suspend him, given that all ‘of the possible risks were covered’ as he ‘couldn’t interfere with any evidence, investigation or individual as he was staying away from the office’. These shortcomings warranted a constructive dismissal verdict with an award of €1.25m.

Shortly thereafter, in the case of Bank of Ireland v Reilly [2015] IEHC 241, the High Court offered some useful guidance on this matter, when warning that: ‘the suspension of an employee, whether paid or unpaid, is an extremely serious measure which can cause irreparable harm to his or her reputation and standing. It is potentially capable of constituting a serious blemish on the employee’s employment record with consequences for his or her future career’. In its determination the Court held that insufficient information had been given to Reilly prior to the suspension and that the bank had pre-judged the situation before concluding the disciplinary process. It also explained that a suspension should only be imposed ‘after full consideration of the necessity for it pending a full investigation’ of the issues. Helpfully, it also identified four circumstances warranting suspension:

(i) to prevent repetition of the conduct complained of; 
(ii) to prevent interference with evidence; 
(iii) to protect individuals at risk from such conduct and/or 
(iv) to protect the employer’s business and reputation.

Most Recent Cases
Subsequently, in 2023, the High Court  granted a  plaintiff's application to lift a suspension pending the outcome of disciplinary proceedings. The court  held that the plaintiff had a strong case, as she had not been afforded fair procedures in relation to the suspension, as it was open-ended and there had been no finding of gross misconduct against her up to the date of the hearing (Hennigan v An Coimisiun Le Rinci Gaelacha [2023] IEHC 87).

The most recent high-profile case on the subject to come before the Supreme Court was O’Sullivan V HSE  [2023] IESC 11, where it was alleged that  the plaintiff was deemed to have conducted experiments on patients without their consent. Notably, the High Court had initially ruled that the claimant’s suspension was legitimate, highlighting the need for and priority of an ongoing investigation. This decision was overturned at the Court of Appeal, but was subsequently restored by the Supreme Court. Relying upon the English  test case of  Braganza v BP Shipping [2015] 1 W.L.R. 1661, the Supreme Court noted its finding that when it comes to suspensions: ‘… a decision maker’s discretion will be limited, as a matter of necessary implication, by concepts of honesty, good faith and genuineness and the need for absence of arbitrariness, capriciousness, perversity and irrationality. The concern is that the discretion should not be abused’.

The WRC and Labour Court’s Determinations
Given that the overwhelming majority of externally contested workplace disputes end up at the WRC (and are occasionally appealed to the Labour Court), it is helpful to note the extent to which the aforementioned superior court’s logic pertains at such fora. In recent years there has been a sizeable number of cases on the subject (of suspensions) before these third parties. 

For example, relying upon the aforementioned Bank of Ireland v Reilly case, in 2019 the Labour Court overturned a WRC decision, when it held that the complainant was constructively dismissed, as it confirmed that a suspension: ‘.. can cause irreparable damage’  to one’s reputation and so should be a measure designed to facilitate the proper conduct of an investigation, to prevent repetition of an employee’s conduct, to protect others at risk from that conduct, to prevent interference with evidence or to protect the employer’s business or reputation (UDD1930).

In the following year, the former chief executive of Tipperary Chamber of Commerce – who had been on paid suspension to allow an investigation take place – successfully pursued a claim under the Payment of Wages Act. In the course of the suspension, he was laid off and his wages stopped - as were  all of the Chamber’s staff (due to the Covid pandemic). However, relying upon a term in their disciplinary procedure stating that the complainant ‘will be paid pending (disciplinary) investigation’, the WRC upheld the complaint, noting that there was no term providing for the discontinuance of paid suspension in the event of being placed on lay-off, whilst no evidence was presented  showing why the investigation couldn’t proceed (ADJ-00032166).

In 2024, An Garda Siochana found themselves before third parties in two cases pertaining to suspensions. In the first case, a Garda was awarded €12,250 for leave not taken whilst on ‘administrative’ leave (i.e. suspended) over a six-year period. In this case, the WRC held that the employer had failed to ensure that the complainant had taken his leave, as it referenced obligations under Section 23 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, which requires compensation for the loss of annual leave. The WRC found no evidence that the employee was proactively encouraged to take his leave, nor was he informed that his entitlement would expire should he fail to avail of it (ADJ-00035666). In a separate case, the Labour Court held that a former Garda was entitled to a period of ‘suspension pay’ (prior to her dismissal), due to the absence of a review regarding her eligibility for it. A key determinant in this instance was the failure of the respondent (i.e. the Department of Justice/An Garda Síochána) to point out  any rule or regulation stating that there was no entitlement to suspension pay after a custodial sentence is completed (PWD2454). 

This tallies with a (separate) case in 2023, when the WRC held that the imposition of one day’s suspension without pay - in the absence of any authorisation in respect of same  in the contract or employer’s handbook - constituted a breach of Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 (ADJ-00037787). Indeed, this principle was established in Murphy v Ryanair PLC (1992), when the EAT ruled that suspension without pay constitutes a deduction from wages and must be authorised via the contract of employment, a term in a disciplinary procedure or a staff handbook implied into the contract of employment.
Notably, An Garda Siochana found itself back before the WRC earlier this year, when subjected to a  recommendation that it pay €15,000 in compensation for ‘significant failures’  due to the manner in which it handled a suspension. The WRC concluded that An Garda Siochana had disregarded its own procedures, failed to adhere to best practice and proceeded in the absence of an appeal mechanism, adding that the employer was not entitled to dispense with fair procedures (IR - SC – 00004040).

Somewhat similarly, in 2024 the WRC held that a complainant was unfairly dismissed, due to  significant procedural flaws in the employer’s process, including the complainant’s premature and unjustified suspension that was imposed before the complaint had even been received. This case served to reinforce the point that suspension should be a last – not an automatic – resort or response (ADJ-00045306). More recently, in 2025, the WRC awarded two years’ compensation against the Little Sisters of The Poor in an unfair dismissal scenario that included a failure to follow fair procedures in suspending, investigating and disciplining the complainant. Notably, the WRC held that the suspension (lasting 14 months), was excessive and unjustified (ADJ-00048496). This tallies with the subsequent finding from the Labour Court, in respect of the HSE’s decision to suspend an employee for five-and-a-half years. Hardly surprisingly, in this case the Labour Court concluded that the duration was ‘unacceptable, and not capable of being justified in any circumstances’, as it urged the parties ‘to re-engage on a route to return to work for the worker as a matter of urgency once she is medically fit to do so’ (LCR23196).

Later last year, the WRC held that an employee was unfairly dismissed due to a procedurally flawed and unjust disciplinary process. Significantly, it also held that a suspension imposed during the investigation was punitive and unjustified (ADJ-00054909). Yet again, this case serves as a reminder that suspension should be a last – not a first or ‘knee jerk’ - response, unless it clearly meets one or more of the four scenarios specified by the High Court (see above).    

What are the Lessons?
Arising from such cases, it is evident that in suspension scenarios, careful consideration is warranted, including:
 

• The decision to suspend must be necessary and evidence based - not irrational or perverse. That is, the Courts are highly unlikely to reverse a decision unless it is unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious or one which no reasonable decision maker would have made.
• Having given effect to a suspension, the associated investigation should be carried out with all practicable speed.
• An open-ended suspension, particularly one without pay (see below), may be viewed as a disciplinary measure or severe form of punishment. This is pertinent, should a third party determine that the suspension was primarily a punitive or disciplinary measure in response to allegations, rather than a legitimate and appropriate outcome of the investigative or disciplinary process. It may also contribute to a finding of failure on the part of the employer to uphold fair procedures.
• An employee should be given the opportunity to explain her/himself before the suspension decision is finalised. As noted in the O’Sullivan v HSE case from Supreme Court (see above), employees should be afforded an opportunity to explain why a suspension is not warranted and to appeal its enforcement. Though this may not always be feasible when matters are of an  urgent nature, the offer of an appeal should be made as soon as possible thereafter.
• There must be a legal basis to enable progression toward suspension (e.g. via the staff handbook, employment contract,  the organisation’s disciplinary procedure).
• As a suspension may damage an individual’s reputation and restrict their capacity to resume normal working, consideration should be given to a ‘back-to-work’ meeting that updates the employee on any changes and provides appropriate supports enabling their reintegration.
• Disciplinary procedures are designed to be corrective rather than punitive. Hence, a suspension without pay will normally be viewed as a punitive measure. Of course, it may also complicate subsequent decision making, such as whether to issue a further warning (to an employee already suspended without pay), as it  runs the risk of being deemed an excessive or  disproportionate sanction.  Notably, already this year the WRC has upheld a complaint that included an award associated with the respondent’s failure to pay wages during suspension (ADJ-00058588). So, suspensions without pay are not normally recommended, though may be provided for in the employee’s contract,  a term in the disciplinary procedure or a staff handbook provision that can be implied into the contract of employment. For example, in the aforementioned O’Sullivan v HSE case, the consultant’s contract did allow for administrative leave (i.e. suspension) without pay, should an ‘immediate and serious risk to the safety, health, or welfare of patients’ exist, that  warrants an investigation.

Conclusion
Clearly, on the basis of the foregoing – and the high-profile Enoch Burke and Wilson’s Hospital School case - the decision to suspend an employee should not to be taken lightly. Whilst every case will be evaluated on its own merits (and demerits), third parties have set down an array of principles and best practices that should serve decision makers well.