Summary
Two recent Workplace Relations Commission (‘WRC’) decisions issued in November 2025 involved long-serving employees of major Irish public transport operators. At a first glance, the cases share notable factual similarities – both complainants were experienced, long-standing employees and, in each instance, issues arose in relation to their failure to engage with established company policies and processes. However, despite these similarities, the outcomes reflect the need for a nuanced approach when assessing the implications of employee non-compliance.
Background
In the Bus Eireann case (ADJ-00056519), the complainant, a Bus Eireann employee with over 20 years’ service, brought a complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 (‘OWTA’). He alleged that his employer failed to properly consider his statutory entitlements when determining the timing of his annual leave. The dispute arose following the introduction of a digital app for booking annual leave, which it must be said is common across many employers. In this business however it was implemented pursuant to trade union agreement. The complainant declined to use the app and continued to submit paper-based leave applications. Leave taken by the complainant on that basis was not approved and was unpaid.
In November 2024, the employer unilaterally placed the complainant on 16 days annual leave at the end of the leave year. This coincided with a period during which the complainant’s wife, a nurse, was rostered to work throughout. The WRC considered whether the employer had complied with section 20 of the OWTA, which requires consultation with the employee and consideration of family responsibilities, rest and recreation when fixing annual leave dates. The Adjudication Officer (‘AO’) found that the employer should have acted earlier in the year to address the accumulation of leave and to engage meaningfully with the complainant about when that leave should be taken. While noting that no alternative dates were suggested by or on behalf of the complainant, the AO concluded that reliance on the app alone did not satisfy the employer’s statutory duty to consult. The complaint was upheld and Bus Eireann was ordered to pay €2,000 in compensation, assessed as just and equitable by the AO in circumstances where the complainant had also taken unpaid leave at times that suited him earlier in the year.
By contrast, in the Dublin Bus case (ADJ-00056572) a bus driver with 28 years of service who was dismissed for refusing to submit to random drug and alcohol testing. The testing was conducted by a third-party contractor using oral swab methodology in accordance with a company policy introduced in May 2022. The complainant maintained that he would only submit to testing carried out by the company’s Chief Medical Officer, relying on the terms of a 2016 agreement reached following extensive union negotiations. He raised concerns regarding DNA extraction and his constitutional right to bodily integrity.
Disciplinary proceedings were initiated after the complainant refused to submit to the test and eventually walked out of the workplace. The complainant was dismissed for gross misconduct, with the decision upheld on appeal. The AO found the investigation and disciplinary process to be fair and noted that the complainant had been given multiple opportunities to comply and he was adamant that he would never submit to such testing. While acknowledging the complainant’s concerns, the AO concluded that public safety considerations, including the protection of passengers, pedestrians and cyclists, outweighed the individual’s objections. The employer’s objective of ensuring drivers were drug and alcohol free was found to be legitimate, and the testing methodology reasonable. The complaint failed, with the dismissal held not to be unfair.
Key Takeaways
Both cases involved long-serving employees in a highly regulated and unionised sector, where formal processes govern matters ranging from annual leave administration to health and safety compliance. While each dispute arose from a refusal to engage with an employer process, the legal context and consequences of that refusal differed significantly. For employers, particularly in safety-sensitive sectors, these decisions underline the importance of clear communication, meaningful consultation, and the consistent and proportionate application of workplace policies.
