EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM OF: CASE NO.
Nicola Coffey -claimant UD1126/2014
against
Connect Family Resource Centre Limited -respondent
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms. M. Levey B.L.
Members: Mr T. O'Grady
Mr F. Keoghan
heard this claim at Dublin on 25th August and 8th and 9th October 2015
Representation:
Claimant: Mr Paul McGlynn, HRS Consultants, Clonard House, Market Square,
Navan, Co Meath
Respondent: Mr Patrick O’Brien B L instructed by
Tallans, Solicitors, The Haymarket, Drogheda, Co. Louth
Summary of evidence:
Claimant’s Case:
Prior to commencing with and taking up a position as the co-ordinator with the respondent in March 2009 the claimant had gained several years’ experience as a social worker with other organisations. As project co-ordinator the claimant acknowledged her awareness of what this job would entail. She managed several other staff and volunteers and reported to a board of directors. That report was performed infrequently but her main point of contact was her immediate and accessible supervisor.
The respondent operated community oriented programmes and a drop-in centre with purpose of creating and maintaining harmony for their clients and wider associates. Many of these programmes were designed to address personal and social problems and issues that were becoming more common and difficult.
The claimant did not undergo any formal induction process and essentially labelled the structure and proceeding as an ad hoc arrangement. According to her “everything was figured out as things went along”. During a work appraisal meeting in December 2009 the claimant felt unduly criticised and as a result harboured negative feelings about her work and her relationship with her employer. That attitude together with her pregnancy and the continuing pressurised workload resulted in her reaching a “breaking point”. Following her return to work from her maternity leave in March 2011 the claimant reached another “burn out” phase which forced her to take sick leave and holidays in December which extended into the New Year.
Communication between the claimant and the respondent occurred on 4 January 2012. The claimant regarded the email from her manager as harassment and she informed her employer that she was off work due to anxiety and stress and the latest email from the respondent added to that condition. She returned to work on 8 January. As an experienced social worker the claimant understood the meaning and consequences when people talked of committing self-harm. Such expressions had to be taken seriously. She developed the habit of absorbing and indeed taking on the trouble and stifle of her clients. This phenomenon increased her stress levels. The claimant told the Tribunal that nobody seemed to understand her pain and difficulties as she struggled to cope with life. She needed time to heal and in July 2013 recommenced sick leave.
In September 2013 the claimant’s doctor noted that her stress related condition was not improving and would continue into the future. In late October the claimant wrote to the board detailing her condition and attitude and made certain suggestions. While she proposed a severance package for herself she did not appreciate what a redundancy entailed and was definitely not seeking to extract undue payments from the respondent. The following month the company sent her their grievance procedure, advised her that a redundancy was not an option, and invited her to attend their company doctor to assess her health and wellbeing.
In accepting that she did not avail of the grievance procedure the claimant acknowledged that this omission deprived the respondent of addressing her complaints.
The company doctor formed the opinion that the claimant was unfit to return to her current job and will be for some time. That doctor added the type of work she undertakes is not suited to her character and that she should consider a career change. Those opinions were formed at an examination of the claimant in January 2014. In the spring of that year a meeting between the claimant and the respondent occurred and references were made to the possibility of another position with the respondent. However, that possibility never materialised. The claimant wrote to her manager on 27 May stating that she had been left with no option but to resign. In that letter she accused the company of failing in its responsibilities towards her. In earlier evidence the claimant positively commented on the help and support she was offered by the respondent in assisting her to overcome her troubles.
The Tribunal heard evidence from a counsellor who first treated the claimant in May 2015. He stated that he felt her work situation had contributed somewhat to a medical condition the claimant was suffering with. He therefore concurred with the doctor’s letter that the claimant’s work was not suitable for her.
Respondent’s Case:
The respondent is one of 106 resource centres. JB is a regional support worker who supports a number of projects like the respondent. JB advised on the staff handbook and grievance and disciplinary procedures and she disputed the claimant’s evidence that she had not received the staff handbook as she had emailed it to the claimant five days into the employment.
The claimant had the relevant qualifications to carry out the role. The work associated with the role had not changed since the claimant commenced her employment. JB knew this as she had developed the work plan for the centre. Training is provided through the National Forum and if required the board will approve other work-related training. The workload can vary with the role as each project is unique to its community.
When the claimant commenced employment a number of induction meetings were conducted with her and were attended by JB and the staffing sub-group. The role of the sub-group is to provide regular monthly support. It is open to an employee to seek support from this sub-group or from a regional support worker such as JB and the claimant was aware of that.
JB was part of the appraisal board for the claimant’s appraisal in December 2009. The perspective of the board and any changes required were provided to the claimant in advance of the appraisal meeting. At that meeting the claimant came across as over critical of herself when the board was satisfied with the work she had carried out and this was conveyed to the claimant during the meeting. JB referred the Tribunal to the documents where it was noted that the claimant had high work expectations and felt she had not done enough when in fact she had.
During cross-examination JB stated that a risk assessment was carried out when the centre moved location.
In reply to questions from the Tribunal, JB outlined that the work is geographically focused and divided into two areas: family support and developmental. The claimant’s workload would not have changed much as a result of a downturn in the economy, as the centre is based in an area that had a high deprivation and unemployment score prior to the recession.
The Chairperson at the time of the claimant’s employment gave evidence she was the claimant’s line manager. Overall she felt they had a good relationship. The Chairperson stated that the claimant was excessively hard on herself and therefore any feedback was couched positively.
The staffing sub-group meetings were used to talk to the claimant about any issues she was having in her role as co-ordinator. The community development plan is centred around the needs of the community in which the resource centre is based. There was no change to the claimant’s role during the tenure of her employment. During cross-examination she stated that an expansion of the role to include dealing with conflict within the community and visitation with parent’s etcetera was initiated by the claimant.
The Chairperson felt misrepresented by the claimant’s evidence regarding the level of support she provided to her. Monthly staff meetings were held and issues were fed back to the Board.
A support worker informed the Chairperson in November 2012 that she was concerned about the claimant. The support worker was working with the claimant on a three-year work plan and she was worried about the claimant’s health from the last few meetings they held together. She was also concerned in relation to a comment the claimant made to her during a telephone call.
The comment was taken seriously and both the Chairperson and the support worker met with the claimant. The Chairperson felt it was a relief to the claimant to express how she had been feeling and she agreed to attend her doctor. When she subsequently returned from sick leave there were professional supports in place for her to attend. It was also agreed that the claimant and the Chairperson would meet on a fortnightly basis and the claimant could address any issues or stresses to the Chairperson. Matters improved during 2012.
However, from July 2013 the claimant was absent once again on sick leave. The Chairperson was not keen to contact the claimant as the claimant had previously claimed to be harassed by the Chairperson while on sick leave. By September 2013 the Chairperson needed to know some prognosis. A letter was subsequently received from the claimant’s doctor in October 2013 and the claimant also wrote to the board which was the first time she raised the issue of a lack of support.
The claimant sought redundancy but her role was not redundant and funding for it was refused on that basis. A part time community development worker position became available. This was a less stressful role and it was offered to the claimant but she did not reply to the offer.
The Chairperson stated that she supported the claimant in her role but felt the claimant was not suited to the role due to the stress it caused her.
Determination:
The bar for constructive dismissal is very high and unfortunately the claimant has not demonstrated that there was a deficit in the manner in which the employer dealt with her complaints such as to render her constructively dismissed. In addition it is unfortunate that the claimant did not pursue grievances through the relevant procedure. The Tribunal also notes that an alternative and less stressful position was offered to the claimant. While the Tribunal has sympathy for the claimant in this case it cannot find that she was constructively dismissed. Accordingly, the claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007, fails.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)