Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Creche Manager

A Creche

Representatives

Cuddy & Company Solicitors

John Nash Solicitors

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00011693-001

01/06/2017

The respondent employed the complainant as a creche manager from 26th of March 2012 until the 27th of April 2017. She was paid €679.88 per week. The parties made written and oral submission to the hearing.

The respondent submits that there were no issues arising from the employment relationship until in or around September/October 2016. Simultaneously, the complainant informed the respondent that she had issues with her thyroid. It was agreed that she would finish earlier each day in ease of her situation however there was a noticeable change in the complainant’s mood. She created an ‘intolerable working environment’ over the next few months. Staff complained and were asked to put their concerns in writing. The respondent met the complainant on the 27th of February 2017 these difficulties and ‘serious allegations’. The complainant ‘wouldn’t entertain any conversation in relation to complaints’ and informed the respondent that she felt stressed at work and was considering resignation. The complainant submitted a sick certificate citing workplace stress on the same day and remained out sick for a further 7 weeks without direct communication other than to present sick certificates. The respondent wrote to the complainant on the 2nd of March advising that she intended to carry out a full investigation of the complaints made against her and requested that she should seek medical clearance to the effect that she would be able to engage in the process. The clearance was received on the 6th of March. The parties met on the 7th of April as part of the process and the complainant provided perfunctory answers to the questions she was asked. She was then asked to put her responses into writing. The complainant was provided with every opportunity to respond but in the absence of the same the respondent was left with no alternative but to dismiss her.

The complainant submits that she experienced difficulties managing a colleague who was employed by the respondent in 2014. She was known personally to the respondent who refused to support her in her efforts to deal with the matter. On the 20th of September the complainant met with the respondent to request a reduction in the hours she worked (7am to 6pm – Monday to Friday) and to discuss the other staff member. They agreed a reduction to 4.30pm each day and they discussed the fact that the complainant could not work with this other individual. The respondent refused to listen. On the 27th of February she was informed that the respondent would do her school run on the next morning and she met her in the office the next day. The respondent said that the other staff felt they were ‘walking on egg shells’ around her. The complainant stated that she could understand that as the other issue had not been dealt with and staff was becoming increasingly difficult to manage as a result. She suggested that the respondent should arrange a meeting between with the other person and herself to try to resolve the matter as she would need her support to do so. The respondent spoke to the other person thereafter and reported that she was not disposed to meet on the basis that she felt that everything was being turned on her. The respondent refused to instruct her to attend the meeting and suggested that the complainant should take the rest of the day off. She went to clear up and was instructed to leave before she could do so. She attended her doctor who gave her a medical certificate citing workplace stress. She presented her cert that evening but the respondent did not engage with her other than to express thanks for the cert. On the 1st of March she received a text from a parent informing her that her son had been told that she was ‘not working at the creche anymore.’ She was informed by letter that a disciplinary investigation had commenced on the 3rd of March. No details were provided in relation to the specific allegations and it included a disciplinary procedure which she had never seen before. The complainant responded by letter of the 21st of March outlining her recollection of events to date and informing the respondent that she had never been cautioned in relation to her behaviour or advised of any specific issues or incidents which inspired hers of the 2nd ult. She met the respondent on the 7th of April and was advised (first time) of the very serious allegations made against her. She denied the allegations. The complainant’s sister attended with her. The meeting commenced at 6.30pm and they were back in the car at 6.37pm. She denied the allegations, provided explanation as appropriate and requested the statements grounding the allegations. The respondent said that she would provide them when she had made her decision. It came to light thereafter that the respondent had communicated with parents on the 4th of April in respect of her upcoming maternity leave and omitted the complainant’s name from the list of contacts available in her absence and advising that she would not be taking children under the age of two from the following September. The complainant wrote to the respondent on the 11th of April requesting the statements and once again denying the allegations. She responded asking for any other statement or documents prior to her making the decision and enclosing the complaints from staff members and follow up notes. The letter of dismissal was received on the 27th of April 2017. There was no right of appeal granted.

The herein dismissal was wholly unfair. It was devoid of fair procedure and had no regard for the rights of the complainant. Her solicitor’s letter addressed to the respondent on the 5th of May 2017 recites the various breaches of natural justice save one which is that the respondent acted as judge and jury in this case. The unfortunate element arising in this case is that the complainant was denied the right to protect her good name with obvious implications for her professional life and standing in the local community.

The complaint is well founded. I hereby require that the respondent pay the complainant €17,500 (say seventeen thousand five hundred euro) in compensation for breach of the Act.