{"id":56520,"date":"2026-05-21T11:34:34","date_gmt":"2026-05-21T11:34:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/developments\/?post_type=legal_developments&p=56520"},"modified":"2026-05-21T12:02:09","modified_gmt":"2026-05-21T12:02:09","slug":"labour-court-finds-employer-not-required-to-pay-ssp-where-employee-did-not-qualify-for-company-sick-pay","status":"publish","type":"legal_developments","link":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/developments\/thought-leadership\/labour-court-finds-employer-not-required-to-pay-ssp-where-employee-did-not-qualify-for-company-sick-pay\/","title":{"rendered":"Labour Court Finds Employer Not Required to Pay SSP Where Employee Did Not Qualify for Company Sick Pay"},"content":{"rendered":"

SK Biotek Ireland Ltd v Shannon Reina (SLD262)<\/em> is a recent decision by the Labour Court in respect of an appeal of a Workplace Relations Commission (\u201cWRC\u201d) decision concerning statutory sick pay. The Complainant lodged the original claim under the Sick Leave Act 2022 (the \u201cAct\u201d) in circumstances where she did not receive sick pay under her employer\u2019s sick pay scheme due to a failure to follow their absence management policy, and she did not receive statutory sick pay either. The WRC Adjudicator upheld the Complainant\u2019s claim and awarded her compensation of \u20ac500, but on appeal the Labour Court overturned this decision.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Facts<\/strong>: The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a Quality Control Analyst from 14th<\/sup> August 2023 until her resignation with effect from 12th<\/sup> July 2024. The Complainant had a number of certified sickness-related absences during her employment with the Respondent and had previously received a verbal warning for breach of the Respondent\u2019s absence management policy. As the Complainant submitted her complaint to the WRC on 14th<\/sup> July 2024, only one period of sick leave, that between 13th<\/sup> and 17th<\/sup> May 2024 was within the cognisable period for the purpose of her WRC claim.<\/p>\n

The Respondent operates a sick pay scheme for employees that includes an initial qualifying period of six months\u2019 service. This was outlined in the Complainant\u2019s contract of employment. Following the qualifying period, the scheme provides for payment of basic salary during sick leave up to a maximum of four weeks during any 12 consecutive months, provided that the employee complies with the rules of the sick pay scheme. Thereafter it provides that employees may be eligible to receive 50% pay for a further 4 weeks, subject to terms and conditions. The Complainant was regarded as being ineligible to benefit under the Respondent\u2019s sick pay scheme because she had been found to be in breach of its absence management policy.<\/p>\n

The Respondent\u2019s position was that it was not subject to the statutory sick pay scheme provided for under the Act because its sick pay scheme confers benefits on employees which, as a whole, are more favourable than statutory sick pay. The Respondent\u2019s legal representative, Des Ryan BL, provided a detailed comparison between the Respondent\u2019s sick pay scheme and the statutory scheme. It was submitted on behalf of the Respondent that under section 9 of the Act, an employer\u2019s sick pay scheme may be regarded as more favourable as a whole than statutory sick pay notwithstanding that it may be subject to certain conditions or eligibility criteria.<\/p>\n

The Complainant told the Court that she agreed that the Respondent\u2019s sick pay scheme was more favourable than statutory sick pay. Furthermore, she did not dispute the Respondent\u2019s position that she did not meet the eligibility criteria of the Respondent\u2019s scheme in May 2024 due to the extent of her absences from the workplace. However, the Complainant argued that in circumstances where she became disentitled to benefit from the Respondent\u2019s sick pay scheme, the Respondent was obliged to apply the statutory scheme to her.<\/p>\n

Decision: \u00a0<\/strong>The Labour Court did not agree with the Complainant\u2019s contention and found that it was not consistent with the proper interpretation of the Act. The Labour Court found that the words used in section 9(1) of the Act are clear and unambiguous:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe obligations under this Act shall not apply<\/strong> to an employer who provides his or her employees a sick leave scheme where the terms of the scheme confer, over the course of a reference period set out in the scheme, benefits that are, as a whole, more favourable to the employee than statutory sick leave.\u201d <\/em>[our emphasis].<\/p>\n

The Court overturned the WRC Adjudicator\u2019s decision and held that as the Respondent\u2019s sick leave scheme fell squarely within section 9, which exempts the Respondent from the obligation to pay statutory sick pay, the Respondent was not obliged to pay the Complainant sick pay.<\/p>\n

The Court commented \u201cT<\/em>he section admits of no exceptions to this exemption and does not confer any discretion on this Court to imply any such exception into it<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Takeaway for Employers<\/strong>: This decision makes it clear that employers are permitted to apply conditions to their sick pay scheme, and that where an employee does not qualify for company sick pay, employers are not required to pay statutory sick pay if the company scheme is exempt under section 9 of the Act. While the decision may be regarded as harsh, and indeed the Adjudicator in the original WRC decision regarded the Respondent\u2019s actions as being \u201csomewhat harsh\u201d<\/em> (in circumstances where the Complainant\u2019s absences through illness were certified and genuine), the decision is in line with the provisions of the Act. The Act makes it clear that contractual sick pay and statutory sick pay don\u2019t run in parallel. It is one or the other. To quote the decision of the Court in relation to section 9, \u201cThe section admits of no exceptions to this exemption and does not confer any discretion on this Court to imply any such exception into it.\u201d <\/em><\/p>\n

Since the introduction of statutory sick pay there have been several notable decisions, including Ann Britton v. Amcor Flexibles Ltd<\/em> as discussed in our most recent newsletter<\/a>. Employers who have company sick pay schemes should give these schemes careful consideration and seek legal advice to ensure they are not in breach of their obligations under the Act.<\/p>\n

Links<\/strong>–<\/p>\n

Labour Court: https:\/\/www.workplacerelations.ie\/en\/cases\/2026\/february\/sld262.html<\/a><\/p>\n

WRC: https:\/\/www.workplacerelations.ie\/en\/cases\/2025\/march\/adj-00052845.html<\/a><\/p>\n

Authors \u2013 Tara Kelly and Jenny Wakely <\/em><\/p>\n

27th<\/sup> February 2026<\/p>\n

Anne O\u2019Connell
\n<\/strong>Solicitors
\n<\/strong>19-22 Lower Baggot Street
\nDublin 2.<\/p>\n

www.aocsolicitors.ie<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","class_list":["post-56520","legal_developments","type-legal_developments","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/developments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/legal_developments\/56520","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/developments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/legal_developments"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/developments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/legal_developments"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/developments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=56520"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}