ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00006376

Complaint(s):

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 13/03/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath

Location of Hearing: Room 4.05 Lansdowne House

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.

Background

The complainant commenced working with the respondent, a day and boarding school, in January 1998. She was employed as a French teacher and a TEFL (Teaching English as a Foreign Language) teacher on a number of fixed term contracts. The complainant commenced employment as a permanent member of staff in April 2008. The complainant also held the role of "International Students Co-ordinator". The complainant's gross salary was €45,426.50.

The complaints under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 and the Protected Disclosures act 2014 were received by the WRC on 1^st December 2016.

CA 00008524-001 Complaint under the Safety Health and Welfare

Summary of Complainant's Submission

The complainant submitted that she made complaints to the school authorities in relation to safety, health and welfare issues in 2015 and 2016. The majority of these complaints related to the living conditions of the students. A number of emails she sent were ignored. On 19^th January the complainant sent an email to members of the Board of Governors and Board of Management relaying concerns brought to the complainant by a parents regarding health and safety issues. The Chair of the Board of Governors replied to the complainant asking her to address her concerns to a specific member of the management team.

On 8^th February the complainant was issued with a written warning from the Board of Management due to the complainant's leave. The complainant believes this to be a response to her complaints rather than a genuine written warning in respect of her leave.

In March 2016 the complainant noticed a reduction in her salary relating to her monthly qualification allowance. When the complainant followed up on this she was told it had been an administrative error.

The complainant invoked the respondent's grievance procedure on 5^th May 2016.

Summary of Respondent's Submission

The respondent denies the allegation. The respondent submits that the dismissal of the complainant was by reason of redundancy for purely economic reasons and it did not arise wholly or mainly or at all from any alleged penalisation.

The respondent also put forward the case that if the redundancy had not taken place the complainant's grievance would have been addressed in the normal way. Regarding the deduction from pay the respondent stated that this was a matter of fact but was not connected to the complaints made by the complainant.  

The respondent also pointed out that not one student had withdrawn from the school and that it was liable to regular state inspections.

Findings and Conclusions

There is enough evidence to convince me that the complainant was penalised on foot of the complaints she made regarding safety, Health and Welfare.

Decision

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

The complaint fails.

CA 00008524-002 Complaint under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014

Summary of Complainant's Submission

The complainant submitted that in January 2015 she emailed a number of people, including the Registrar for International Students and the Health and Safety Officer, raising a number of governance issues relating to the fees charged to international students. She also raised other issues relating to health and safety and governance in 2015/16. In her grievance letter of May 2016 the complainant highlighted a number of complaints she had received from students regarding freezing temperatures, dirty toilets and general cleanliness standards around the school. This letter it is argued equates to a protected disclosure.

It is the complainant's view that the respondent penalised her on foot of this protected disclosure by firstly with-holding salary due to her and by then dismissing her.

Summary of Respondent's Submission

The respondent categorically denies that the complainant's dismissal was due to anything other than the need to make her post redundant. It is certainly not linked in any way to the so-called Protected Disclosure as presented by the complainant. The respondent submits that the matters raised by the complainant do not equate to Protected Disclosure and that a grievance cannot be categorised as a Protected Disclosure.

Without prejudice to the above the respondent contends that the issues raised by the complainant were being addressed and would have been dealt in due course had it not been for the fact that her post became redundant.

The respondent also pointed out that not one student had left the school because of the living conditions and that the school is subject to continuous and rigorous inspections.

Findings and Conclusions

Having considered the matter carefully I do not believe the complainant has adduced evidence of a sufficient nature to convince me that penalised on foot of her Protected Disclosure. No causal link has been adduced.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

The complaint fails.

Dated:   11/05/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath

Key Words: