FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SISTERS OF ST. PAUL DE CHARTRES (REPRESENTED BY ARTHUR O HAGAN, SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Reinstatement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Queen of Peace Centre is a nursing home run by the Sisters of St. Paul de Chartres. The worker commenced employment on a part-time basis in February 2003. In January, 2005, she was engaged to work on a more full-time basis ( three / four 8-hour days per week). In June, 2005, management was informed by the Gardai and also by the Health Service Executive (HSE) that they had received a complaint by a member of staff making allegations against the worker. The case was also referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). The worker was suspended immediately pending the outcome of investigations by the Gardai and the HSE. In the event, both investigations concluded that there had been no wrongdoing by the worker concerned. The worker was invited to return to work. The worker refused, however, as she preferred to wait until the DPP issued its conclusions. The Centres' case is that it had no choice but to hire another employee and that the worker concerned had effectively terminated her employment.
The worker referred her case to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 21st of September, 2006. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The investigation was very stressful for the worker. She preferred to wait until the DPP's investigation was finalised before returning to work.
2. Although the Centre did offer the worker some work, the hours were not suitable and the Centre was aware of that.
CENTRE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Centre offered to re-instate the worker with immediate effect once the investigation was concluded. It could not understand why she refused to return.
2. The Centre was left with no choice but to hire another employee to replace the worker. The Centre offered the worker 32 hours per week on alternative nursing shifts but the offer was rejected.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court fully accepts that the employer acted properly in its handling of the unfortunate events giving rise to this case. In particular the employer acted reasonably and in line with good practice in inviting the worker to return to work when it became apparent that the complaint against her was without foundation.
The Court also accepts that the worker must have suffered significant stress and anxiety in consequence of what occurred and this may have contributed to what would otherwise have to be regarded as her unreasonable refusal to return to work when asked to do so. This refusal left the employer with no choice at that time but to replace the worker.
In the circumstances of this case, and without any suggestion of impropriety in the manner in which it handled the case, the Court recommends that the worker be paid an additional two weeks' pay, on an ex gratia basis, in recognition of the distress which she suffered in consequence of these events.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
5th October, 2006______________________
CON/MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.