Garda loses out on €82k loss of earnings claim after suspension lasting over two years

Gordon Deegan

A serving Garda has lost out in his claim for loss of allowances and overtime estimated at €82,571 while he was suspended from the force for more than two years.

This follows the Labour Court dismissing the Garda’s claim for loss of allowance and overtime after deputy Labour Court chair, Katie Connolly, stated that the court was of the view that the policy in relation to payment to gardaí when on suspension was applied correctly in this case.

The court records that the Garda was exonerated more than two years after he was placed on suspension following an incident in April 2021 when he assisted a colleague in restraining an assailant.

Criminal proceedings were instigated against the Garda, and the disciplinary process was paused pending the outcome of those proceedings.

In May 2023, criminal charges against the Garda were dismissed and the disciplinary process was immediately closed and the Garda returned to duties.

In a companion ruling, the Labour Court has recommended that An Garda Síochána pay €5,000 compensation to the Garda as the application of the suspension policy in this case lacked transparency, and several provisions were not followed.

These included that the Garda was not informed of the reason for his initial suspension and was not notified of internal vacancies while suspended, as required.

As part of his separate loss of €82,571 in earnings claim under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, the Garda Representative Association (GRA) on his behalf submitted that the suspension period for more than two years, far exceeded any reasonable timeframe for a holding suspension.

The GRA also stated that during his suspension the Garda was deprived of income, pensionable allowances and advancement opportunities “and was not treated with the presumption of innocence set out in the employer’s suspension policy”.

The GRA submitted that the suspension policy had a punitive financial effect, in circumstances where the worker was ultimately cleared of all charges – both criminal and disciplinary.

The GRA stated that the Garda seeks compensation for his loss of allowances and overtime payments when suspended, estimated at €82,571 and for the detrimental impact on his pension under the Single Public Service Scheme.

The GRA claimed that precedent exists within the employment for providing compensation for allowances not worked, where a worker is injured on duty or attending training courses. The GRA stated that the same principle of fairness should apply in this case.

The case was before the Labour Court following An Garda Síochána appealing against a recommendation by a Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) Adjudicator in January of this year.

At the Labour Court, An Garda Síochána contended that the Garda complaint over loss of earnings “is misconceived as monetary compensation for a period of perceived “loss” does not arise”.

An Garda Síochána stated that the Garda is not entitled to be paid for unsocial hours not worked and not required to be worked.

A representative for the gardaí pointed out that suspension policy provides for payment of 100 per cent of basic pay by way of a Suspension Allowance.

The Gardai stated that concession of the claim “would undermine the Disciplinary and Suspension policies and have knock-on implications for other personnel on suspension”.

On behalf of the court, Ms Connolly stated that both parties accept that the policy governing the suspension of workers provides for payment of a suspension allowance equivalent to 100 per cent of basic pay for the period of suspension and that the worker in this case received the applicable suspension allowance.

Ms Connolly stated that the policy does not provide for payment of additional allowances or overtime.

She stated that the policy and applicable regulations do not provide for the application of any discretion or exceptions in any particular circumstances.

Ms Connolly stated that “when assisting parties resolve individual disputes the Court has no role or remit to step outside applicable processes and procedures”.