The High Court ordered Vedanta Lisheen Mining Limited to pay three senior Lisheen mine managers sick pay for six months, after finding they had a strong case that the company should have considered extending payments beyond the six weeks set out in their employment agreement.
Mr Justice Ryan said the company had applied the six-week term without exercising its discretion to extend pay, despite a practice of paying some employees for longer. The managers had been treated inconsistently with that practice, he found. The six-month period was set for the interlocutory application; it was not an open-ended award. Any request for further payments would be for the company to decide on its merits, taking account of matters including medical advice and the managers’ cooperation with medical examinations.
The three plaintiffs, John Elmes, Brian Keady and Sean Callery, were senior managers at Lisheen Mine in Co Tipperary. They were on certified sick leave with work-related stress after a fatal accident at the mine in April 2013 and disputes about the investigation that followed. The judgment describes their allegations of bullying, harassment and unfair treatment, but does not determine whether those allegations were true.
The managers said a presentation to Vedanta executives had proposed disciplining senior Lisheen management for failures of control and discipline. The company’s chief executive later said no decision had been made to discipline anyone and that any process would follow relevant procedures. At the time of the motion, no disciplinary process had been initiated.
The plaintiffs also sought an order requiring an independent investigation into their grievances. The company had agreed to investigate, but the parties disputed who should do so. The judge refused to require an outside investigator, finding no basis for the court to dictate or supervise the company’s internal process. He said the company was wrong to insist that the plaintiffs had to return to work before submitting grievances, but that issue had become irrelevant after their solicitors submitted a grievance statement, which the company accepted.
The court also refused to bar possible disciplinary action. It held that intervention would be premature before an investigation or disciplinary process had begun. The ruling concerned interlocutory relief pending the substantive proceedings; it did not resolve the underlying employment disputes or the truth of the complaints.