Decision remains significant in a post-COVID context, highlighting the ongoing importance of transparency and procedural fairness in employer decision-making.

The Complainant submitted that during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, she had been classified as an “essential worker” and permitted to travel beyond restricted limits to attend work in a healthcare setting. Due to her role, she was among the first to receive the Covid-19 vaccine. In July 2022, she applied for the “Pandemic Special Recognition Payment,” believing she met the eligibility criteria outlined in HSE Circular 12/2022. However, in February 2023, she was informed that her application had been rejected on the basis that she did not meet the criteria. Despite repeated queries, the Respondent maintained that the decision was final, no reasons were required, and no appeal mechanism existed. The Complainant argued that this outcome was both procedurally and substantively unfair, particularly as her recent role change had not been considered. She further contended that the lack of transparency and appeal process rendered the process unjust.

The Respondent denied the allegations, acknowledging that she had applied for the “Pandemic Special Recognition Payment” but explaining that her application was refused because she worked in an office, which was not considered an “eligible environment” under the applicable guidelines. While accepting that she had been exempt from travel restrictions and prioritised for vaccination, they argued that these factors applied broadly to staff and did not guarantee payment eligibility. They stated that the application was reviewed by a “Dispute Resolution Committee” and whose terms, agreed by the trade unions, provided for written decisions with no right of appeal.

The Adjudicating Officer reviewed all relevant submissions concerning the claim for the Pandemic Payment. The Complainant argued she met eligibility criteria outlined in HR Circular 012/2022. However, it was found that her role was office-based and not directly involved with public-facing or patient-care duties. As such, she did not meet the core eligibility requirement of working in a COVID-exposed healthcare environment or being in vaccination Sequence Groups 1 or 2. The Adjudicator found the refusal reasonable. Nonetheless, they criticised a failing to provide reasons for the decision or a clear appeals process. Although this did not affect the outcome, it was deemed procedurally unfair and unnecessarily distressing. It was noted that issuing a simple reason for refusal would not have been burdensome.

This decision remains significant in a post-COVID context, highlighting the ongoing importance of transparency and procedural fairness in employer decision-making. As public institutions and workers continue to reflect on pandemic-era entitlements, this underscores the need for clear communication and fair treatment, particularly where discretionary benefits are concerned.

Employers should:

• Ensure Transparency in Decision-Making: When processing applications for discretionary benefits, clearly communicate the eligibility criteria and provide written reasons for any refusals.  
  
• Maintain a Fair and Documented Appeals Process: Even where formal appeals may not be required, offering employees a basic review mechanism or explanation is preferable.  
  
• Regularly Review Role Classifications Against Policy Criteria: Ensure staff roles are accurately assessed against benefit or entitlement criteria, particularly where duties may evolve or involve indirect exposure to risk.

The full case can be found here.