The High Court has rejected a challenge by the Garda Representative Association and Garda Amy Bourke to the application of public service sick leave regulations to An Garda Síochána. The applicants sought, at most, to defer the regulations for Gardaí until a consultation process had concluded. President of the High Court Nicholas Kearns dismissed their grounds of challenge, but said he would hear any application concerning costs after the judgment.
The Public Service Management (Sick Leave) Regulations 2014 came into force on 31 March 2014. They set limits on paid sick leave, including up to 92 days at full pay and 91 days at half pay within a 12-month reference period, subject to other provisions. The applicants argued that applying the rules to Gardaí without different treatment breached fair procedures and legitimate expectations, and that the Minister had considered irrelevant matters or failed to consider relevant ones.
The dispute followed a consultation process that began in 2012. A Garda working group recommended a derogation while a wider review of Garda sickness arrangements took place. In December 2013, Garda associations were told the force would initially be excluded, subject to developing a revised scheme capable of producing significant savings. The Minister subsequently decided to include Gardaí. The regulations were signed on 6 March 2014.
The applicants relied on emails disclosed during the proceedings, including exchanges about a union leader’s opposition to special treatment for Gardaí and the timing of the scheme. The court found that the communications did not establish that wrongful or underhand dealings had affected the decision. It said the Minister was entitled to consider the consequences for negotiations across the public service if Gardaí received different treatment.
On consultation, the court held that the regulations were delegated legislation affecting the public service generally, rather than a measure targeting Gardaí alone. It found no legal requirement for the Minister to continue consultation until the applicants achieved a satisfactory outcome. The court also rejected the legitimate-expectation claim, finding no sufficient promise that Gardaí would be excluded or treated differently.
The court was satisfied that the Minister had regard to the statutory criteria when making the regulations. It noted that Gardaí had an injury-on-duty scheme, under which qualifying duty-related absences were treated separately from ordinary sick leave. The court also rejected the claim that the regulations were legally incoherent, accepting the Minister’s interpretation of how their provisions operated.
The application was therefore dismissed. The judgment did not grant the requested delay or invalidate the regulations. The court expressed “considerable concern” about the lateness of disclosure of the emails and left costs for a possible further application.