The Labour Court recently considered an appeal of a Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) decision in Ann Britton v. Amcor Flexibles Ltd ADJ-00050138. The complaint was in relation to the Sick Leave Act 2022 (“the Act”). The WRC Adjudicator had found that the company sick pay scheme (“CSP scheme”) overall was not more beneficial than the Statutory Sick Pay scheme (“SPS scheme”) and on that basis awarded the Complainant compensation of €1,000. The Respondent appealed this decision to the Labour Court who ultimately upheld the decision of the WRC.
Facts: For ease, the Complainant and Respondent as they were referred to in the WRC remain the same in the Labour Court. The Complainant had commenced employment with the Respondent on 20th April 2023. The Respondent operated a CSP scheme which provided that, following 12 months service an employee may be paid sick leave of up to ten days once a medical certificate was provided on the third day. In the third and fourth year of employment, this would increase to 15 days and 20 days in the fifth year.
In January 2024, the Complainant was on certified sick leave for five days. The Complainant did not qualify for the CSP scheme as she did not have the 12-month service requirement, and she was also informed that she would not receive any payment under the SSP scheme as the CSP scheme was deemed more favourable overall. At the time, the SSP scheme provided five days sick pay over a twelve-month period, after 13 weeks continuous service. This was payable from day 1 of absence and at a rate of 70% of normal pay up to a maximum of €110. The Complainant argued that she was entitled to SSP during the relevant period.
The Respondent argued that the CSP scheme was as a whole more favourable than the SSP as per Section 9 of the Act and on that basis the obligations to pay SSP did not apply to the Respondent. Section 9 also sets out the various factors to be taken into consideration in determining when the Act will not apply. The Respondent accepted that the service requirement and the number of days before eligibility for payment were less favourable in the CSP than the SSP. However, the Respondent submitted that in terms of the period for which sick leave is payable, the amount of sick leave payable and the reference period, the Respondent’s scheme was more favourable as a whole and on that basis their appeal should be upheld.
Decision: The Court upheld the WRC decision and using the factors set out in Section 9(2) compared the CSP and SSP over the course of a reference period being January to December 2024. The applicable absences were 5 days from 2nd January to 8th January.
| Section 9 Considerations | Company Sick Pay Scheme | Statutory Sick Pay Scheme |
| Period of service of an employee that is required before sick leave is payable. | 52 weeks | 13 weeks |
| Waiting Period before sick leave is payable | Three days | No waiting period |
| The period for which sick pay is payable. | Less than 12 months service O days | Five days |
| The amount of sick leave that is Payable. | Entitlement during this absence Nil. Entitlement during the reference period with 12 months service, 2 days only = €252.80 | Entitlement in 12-month reference period with one absence of five days, capped ay 70% = €442 |
| The reference period for the scheme. | 12 months rolling from the first date of absence. | 12 months, time starts to run from 1 day of absence in the year |
Takeaway for Employers: This decision confirms the importance of reviewing and thoroughly evaluating any company sick pay scheme in determining whether the scheme is truly more favourable than the statutory sick pay scheme, within the reference period. An assessment can be carried out pursuant to Section 9(2) of the 2022 Act, and should a company sick pay scheme be deemed more favourable overall, then the statutory sick pay scheme is not applicable. This Labour Court decision gives a good guidance in respect of such assessment.
Links–
Labour Court Decision – Amcor Flexibles Ltd v Ann Britton SLD251
WRC Decision – Ann Britton v Amcor Flexibles Ltd (ADJ-00050138)
Authors – Ethna Dillon and Anne O’Connell
31st January 2026
Anne O’Connell Solicitors
19-22 Lower Baggot Street
Dublin 2.
If you found this article useful you might like our employment law newsletter. We write monthly articles, like this, covering interesting cases, decisions, news and developments in Ireland.