Background:
The Complainant stated that his wife gave birth but experienced complications, necessitating emergency surgery. Despite her weakened state, she was discharged on two days later, earlier than expected. She required significant care, which left her unable to care for their children. Lacking support, the Complainant informed his manager that he could not attend his next three shifts. He requested force majeure leave, explaining the unexpected nature of his wife's condition and the need for his care. The manager advised him that the situation did not qualify for force majeure leave and suggested taking annual leave instead. After contesting this, HR advice confirmed the denial of force majeure leave, though unpaid leave was offered. On the morning following his wife’s discharge, the Complainant’s wife had to return to the hospital due to a suspected spinal fluid leak, increasing her need for support. He informed his manager, who reiterated that force majeure leave was unavailable. With his wife requiring assistance for daily activities and care for their children, the Complainant reluctantly took annual leave, intending to seek redress later. In September, he cited a similar case as a precedent for reconsideration. He emphasised that his wife’s condition was unanticipated, rendering his presence indispensable.

The Respondent declined the Force Majeure Leave, referencing guidelines on "immediate and indispensable presence" under the Parental Leave Act 1998. Further, argued that the Complainant’s absence, set for two days after the request, didn’t meet urgent family needs, as he could have arranged alternative care. The Respondent offered unpaid medical leave, which the Complainant declined, opting for annual leave instead and stating intentions to seek redress. The Respondent referenced cases supporting that predictable needs post-childbirth don't warrant Force Majeure Leave. They argued the Complainant’s absence was not unforeseeable or urgent, as required by the Act, and deemed alternative leave options reasonable. Securitas held that their response was fair and lawful, providing options that suited the circumstances while adhering to legal definitions of Force Majeure Leave.

Finding:
The Adjudicating Officer held that under Section 13 of the Parental Leave Act 1998, an employee is entitled to force majeure leave with pay in situations where their immediate presence is essential due to a family member’s injury or illness. In this case, the Complainant’s leave was necessitated by his wife’s severe illness following childbirth. They found that the Respondent’s refusal to grant force majeure leave and insistence on using the Complainant’s annual leave led to undue stress for the Complainant and his family. The Adjudicator ruled that the leave taken should be classified as force majeure leave, requiring the Respondent to amend records and restore the Complainant's annual leave. Additionally, the Respondent was ordered to compensate the Complainant with €2,500 for the distress caused by the initial refusal. This decision aligns with the Parental Leave Act’s provision for urgent and indispensable care situations.

Practical Guidance for Employers:

Employers should:

• Understand Force Majeure Leave: Know that, under Section 13 of the Parental Leave Act 1998, force majeure leave applies when an employee’s immediate presence is urgently needed due to a family member's unforeseeable illness or injury.
• Evaluate Each Case Individually: Assess requests for force majeure leave based on specific circumstances, urgency, and indispensability of the employee’s presence, especially in medical emergencies.
• Provide Clear Communication and Alternatives: If force majeure leave is denied, explain reasons clearly and offer documented alternatives like unpaid leave or annual leave without compelling its use.
• Consult Legal/HR Resources and Follow Case Precedents: When in doubt, seek HR or legal advice and consider case precedents to ensure fair and compliant decision-making.

The full case can be found here:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2024/october/adj-00052345.html