WRC orders Prison Service to take back officer who went absent without leave to fight in Ukraine

Brian Meagher, who worked as a prison officer in Mountjoy Prison and whose young daughter is Ukrainian, left for Ukraine at the end of May 2022 and expressed hope that he could have gone to fight and returned to Ireland by late August 'with no one knowing'.

The Irish Prison Service has been ordered to re-engage a prisoner officer who was fired after he went absent without leave from his job for several months in 2022 to fight with an international legion in Ukraine.

The Workplace Relations Commission ruled that the IPS had unfairly dismissed prison officer, Brian Meagher, who sustained a life-threatening injury while fighting in Ukraine.

The WRC said the case presented by the IPS was “lopsided” and failed to adequately represent Mr Meagher’s reasons for his absence as well as the plan that it would be short-term and the fact that he was seriously injured and traumatised.

Mr Meagher, who worked as a prison officer in Mountjoy Prison and whose young daughter is Ukrainian, left for Ukraine at the end of May 2022 and expressed hope that he could have gone to fight and returned to Ireland by late August “with no one knowing". 

He was fired after a senior IPS official saw him giving an interview on RTÉ’s Prime Time from a hospital bed in September 2022 after he was wounded in action.

Mr Meagher's testimony

Mr Meagher claimed he could not respond to queries from the IPS about his absence due to the extent of the injuries he had suffered. The case was subsequently referred to the secretary general of the Department of Justice who ultimately decided to dismiss Mr Meagher in May 2023.

The prison officer’s sister, Helen Barker, had informed the IPS in November 2022 that he was back in Ireland receiving treatment for his injuries at Cork University Hospital but that he had every intention of returning to work.

Mr Meagher claimed he had arranged cover with a colleague through an unofficial “swap system". While he accepted that he should be sanctioned for his actions, he claimed dismissal was disproportionate given the unique circumstances of the case.

WRC adjudication officer, Brian Dalton, said the IPS had not accepted an unofficial swap system for shifts existed among staff and it had made no reference to Mr Meagher’s motivation for going AWOL (absent without leave) apart from saying it was “irresponsible".

The WRC said no formal hearing was held where Mr Meagher, who experienced difficulty in getting representation from his trade union, could have been competently represented to explain why he had left his post and why he thought the cover put in place would be adequate.

IPS testimony

The IPS claimed it had extended time so that Mr Meagher had every opportunity to explain why he abandoned his post without permission and had only dismissed him when no satisfactory answer was provided.

“We can’t have a situation whereby people just don’t turn up – we tried to give every opportunity to Mr Meagher,” said IPS official, Colette Mulvey. She pointed out that the situation in Mountjoy Prison at the time was in “crisis mode” with prisoners sleeping on mattresses on the floor.

The IPS claimed Mr Meagher’s assertion that he had made arrangements for his absence to be covered by colleagues was “disingenuous” as the duration of his absence was unknown and had not been reported or approved by prison management.

It argued that medical certification of the injuries sustained by the prison officer in Ukraine was not required as they were unrelated to his AWOL which had commenced several months earlier.

Mr Meagher said he never planned to leave any shifts unattended and had paid €1,800 to a colleague to cover his shifts.

WRC ruling

In his ruling, Mr Dalton said reinstatement was not a just remedy as Mr Meagher had failed to follow correct procedures to obtain leave of absence. “It is clear why he did this as the staff shortages in the service meant that such leave would not be approved,” said Mr Dalton.

He acknowledged that the IPS believed that trust and confidence had been so undermined that neither reinstatement nor re-engagement were appropriate. However, Mr Dalton said there was no question about the prison officer’s character and honesty and he noted that Mr Meagher had previously served in the Defence Forces.

He observed that the complainant had naively believed that he could be away for a meaningful period to support Ukraine without losing his job as a result of shift cover and holidays.

The WRC official said that plan became challenged when Mr Meagher was unable to contact his colleagues and the IPS due to security reasons when he was required not to compromise his position while on active duty in Ukraine.

Mr Dalton said the fact that Mr Meagher was absent for nearly a month before it was noticed was “more indicative of a system that has a high degree of self-regulation and swapping”. 

However, Mr Dalton said the complainant would need to prove to the IPS that he is reliable and had learned from a set of circumstances that is highly unlikely to occur again and which were the opposite of most misconduct cases as they demonstrated “courage and character to help others”. 

The IPS was directed to re-engage Mr Meagher within six weeks and that he be subjected to a six-months’ probation period.

Mr Dalton said his absence should be treated as leave of absence for the calculation of the appropriate incremental salary point and staff service benefits on the date of re-engagement.