Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Parish Secretary

Parish Office

Representatives

Anthony McIntyre Independent Workers Union

John Milligan Mason Hayes & Curran

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00016468-001

20/12/2017

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00016470-001

20/12/2017

The Complainant was employed as Parish Secretary from 3rd February 2007 until the employment was terminated on 17th July 2017 with one month’s salary paid in lieu of notice. The Complainant worked 9 hours over three days and she was paid €150.00 gross per week. The Complainant referred a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission on 20th December 2017 alleging the Respondent had breached Section 3 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 as she had not been provided with a written statement of her Terms and Conditions of Employment. The Complainant also referred a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 alleging she had been unfairly dismissed.

Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994. The Respondent stated that the Complainant did commence employment in 2007 and she was presented with a draft statement of Terms and Conditions of Employment on 11th February 2010 by her then Employer, named, in a named Parish. During a meeting with the Complainant on 11h February 2010 the Complainant stated she did not wish to sign any document. The Respondent stated the Complainant was again furnished with a written statement of Terms and Conditions of Employment on 1st July 2016.

Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 – 2015. The Respondent stated that the Complainant was dismissed in accordance with the Parish Disciplinary Policy and with S.I. 146/2000 and best practice. Copy of Policy provided to the Hearing. The Complainant commenced work in 2007 as a Sacristan/Secretary working Wed/Thur and Fri mornings. The duties of the position were outlined at the Hearing. A named Administrator was appointed to the Parish on 1st November 2014 and he raised concerns concerning the Complainant’s work performance at meetings on 24th June 2015 and again on 12th August 2015. The Complainant was afforded a right of representation at these meetings. As her performance did not improve following these meetings the Complainant was invited to attend a Disciplinary Hearing on 11th November 2015 and was chaired by a named Priest, independent and not known to either the Complainant or the Employer. The Complainant was informed she had a right to be represented which she was and the Hearing was also attended by a named employee of the HR Department. The Complainant was issued with a final written warning and the Complainant was advised of her right to appeal which she did   and this was heard on by a named independent person and the Complainant was represented. This upheld the issuing of the final written warning.

The Respondent held a meeting with the Complainant on 24th February 2016, the purpose was to ensure the Complainant was clear in relation to her duties and responsibilities. However, her performance issues continued.

The Complainant lodged a written complaint of Bullying against her named Employer on 27th May 2016. An Independent Person was nominated to hear the complaint by the Complainant against her named Employer under the Dignity at Work Policy and the complaint by her named Employer against the Complainant under the Disciplinary Policy. The complaint by the Complainant against her named Employer was not upheld while recommending that the disciplinary process should be invoked against the Complainant. This joint report issued on 7th April 2017

The Disciplinary Hearing took place on 15th June 2017. The Complainant was represented. The outcome was a decision to dismiss the Complainant and the Complainant was informed by letter dated 17th July 2017 and she was informed of her right of appeal. An independent person, not known to either party was appointed to hear the appeal. The decision to dismiss was upheld.

The Complainant was provided with all fair procedures and natural justice in relation to her dismissal.

Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994. The Complainant has been employed since 2007 and when she took up her position she was not issued with an agreed contract of employment nor an agreed job description and did not agree to sign off on the contract. During her employment she stated she was provided with various job descriptions but at no time did any of her Employers sit down and agree a contract and job description that was acceptable to all the parties. There were no issues between 2007 and 2010 when she was presented with a detailed job description in writing but because she did not agree with it she refused to accept it. Howeve,r with the appointment of a named person to the Parish the lack of an agreed contract and job description once more was raised.

The Complainant confirmed at the Hearing that she had been provided with a written statement and job description in 2010 and again in 2015 and 2016 but that she had refused to sign.

Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 – 2015. The Complainant stated she was unfairly dismissed from her employment because of a conflict that arose between her and her Employer the Parish Priest. Every time she raised her concerns with her Employer she found herself being marginalised and isolated in the workplace. She had no effective means of resolving her grievances. Attempts by both her and her Representatives to raise her concerns were ignored and unresolved. The Complainant stated that while she was offered an opportunity to be represented at her Disciplinary Hearing she was encouraged to accept a nominated representative selected by her Employer which she duly agreed to do in the hope her good named and reputation would prevail. The Complainant stated that at the Disciplinary Hearing two statements from named individuals dated 10th May 2016 were presented and used against her without her having an opportunity to cross examine them in person.

The Complainant stated that she has not worked since her dismissal as she is in receipt of a pension from the Department of Social Protection. The Complainant also confirmed that she has not sought alternative employment since her dismissal.

On the basis of the evidence, written submissions from both Parties and questioning by the Adjudication Officer at the Hearing I find as follows.

Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994. Both Parties confirmed that the Complainant commenced employment in 2007 and that she was not provided with a written statement of her Terms and Conditions of Employment within two months of the commencement of her employment. Both Parties also confirmed that the Complainant was provided with a written Statement of Terms and Conditions of Employment in February 2010 but that the Complainant refused to accept the statement.

I find that the Complainant was provided with a written statement of her Terms and Conditions of Employment in February 2010.

Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 – 2015. The evidence was that in June and August 2015 meetings were held with the Complainant and her named Employer to discuss performance/responsibility issues. The Complainant was issued with a letter dated 28th October 2015 under the Disciplinary Procedures of the Parish in relation to six named issues. She was advised of her right to representation of her choosing or a named staff advisor. She was provided with a copy of the Disciplinary Policy of the Respondent. She was issued with a final written warning and a right of appeal which she exercised. The warning was upheld.

Her Employer lodged a formal complaint against the Complainant by letter dated 18th June 2016 which he sought to be investigated. The Complainant lodged a formal complaint against her Employer, named, by letter dated 21st June 2016. The Respondent decided to investigate both complaints together and an independent named person was appointed to conduct both investigations. The Terms of Reference were set down for both investigations. – Copy provided. The evidence shows the Complainant was interviewed on 29th September 2016 and on 24th October 2016. The named Employer was interviewed by the Investigator on 5th October 2016 and again on 18th October 2016. The Investigator issued his report on both complaints on 7th April 2017. The outcome was that the complainant of Bullying made by the Complainant against her Employer was not upheld while the Complaint by her Employer against the Complainant was upheld in relation to 11 different complaints and he recommended they should be dealt with under the Disciplinary Procedure while noting there was some mitigation which he outlined should be taken into consideration.

The Complainant was invited to attend a Disciplinary Hearing on 15h June 2017 in relation to the 11 complaints against her which were upheld. She was informed of her right to representation of her choice or a named staff advisor. The outcome was a decision to dismiss.

I note that the Complainant and her Representative raised an issue concerning two complaints made by two parishioners against the Complainant in which they stated that these two individuals were not present at the Disciplinary Meeting so they could be cross examined by the Complainant. Howeve,r I note that this complaint against the Complainant relates to her failure to reply to the complaints as requested by her Employer. The outcome in relation to this issue was that while the Complainant disputes the details of what transpired with the two parishioners the Complainant did not reply in writing to the complaints as requested by her Employer on two occasions. The finding was that this amounts to insubordination. Of the 11 issues that were the subject of the Disciplinary Process the outcome was to find against the Complainant on 10 of the 11 issues.

I find that the Investigation and Disciplinary Process was conducted with due regard to fair procedures and natural justice.

The Complainant was afforded a right of appeal and this was heard by a named independent third party who upheld the dismissal and found that the Complainant had been provided with a Job Description- she was spoken to and written to in relation to her unacceptable performance – she was offered training which she refused and she was afforded time to improve her performance.

I find that the Respondent has acted reasonably in all the circumstances of this case as set out at Section 6 (7)(a) of the Act and the Respondent has complied fully with the procedures of S.I. 146/2000 as set down at Section 6(7)(b) of the Act as this statutory instrument was signed into law by the then Minister on 26/5/2000

I find that the Complainant has not complied with Section 7(2)(c) of the Act as she has failed to take any measures to mitigate her loss.

Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 CA-00016468-001

On the basis of the evidence, my findings above and in accordance with Section 41(5) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 I declare the complaint is not well founded. The Complainant confirmed she had been provided with a written Statement of her Terms and Conditions of Employment on 11th February 2010.

Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 – 2015 CA-00016470-001

On the basis of the evidence, my findings above and in accordance with Section 8 of the Act I declare this complaint is not well founded.

Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 – Complainant was provided with a written Statement

Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 – Fair procedures applied – complaint not well founded.