Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Healthcare Assistant

A Healthcare Provider

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00025010-001

14/01/2019

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

CA-00025010-002

14/01/2019

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00025010-003

14/01/2019

The respondent organisation provides supports to people with an intellectual disability.  The complainant worked there from 2012 in various capacities as an agency worker, a fund-raiser and as a volunteer.  From September 2nd 2017, he was directly employed as a Healthcare Assistant.  In this role, he was assigned to care for one service user and he worked from 8.00am until 8.00pm, on alternate three-day and four-day shifts. 

At the hearing, the complainant described how the incidents that he found problematic at work coincided with very difficult personal tragedies, where his brother and mother died within six months of each other.  It is against this background, combined with the birth of his first child, that the incidents that he complained about occurred in his workplace.  Following his mother’s death in April 2018, the complainant was on bereavement leave.  He was expected back at work on April 14th, but he didn’t show up and didn’t contact anyone to explain his absence.  Members of the HR department sent several letters to him to ask him to get in contact, but they got no response.  On May 25th, a HR manager wrote to the complainant and told him that if didn’t get in touch by May 29th, his employment would be terminated.  There was still no contact and his employment was terminated formally by letter on June 1st 2018.

Six months after the termination of his employment, on December 4th 2018, the complainant wrote to the respondent’s HR manager setting out his grievances in relation to his employment.  The HR manager was on leave until mid-January and, on her return, she wrote to the complainant to inform him that she was dealing with his complaints and she requested further information.  However, before any progress could be made, on January 19th 2019, the complainant submitted his complaints to the WRC.

The complainant said that he has a degree in Social Care and, since he left the employment of the respondent, he has been appointed to a role as a deputy manager in another healthcare organisation. 

At the hearing, the complainant made a detailed statement about his experiences during the seven months that he worked for the respondent organisation.  He said that he was disciplined over “silly things,” that he was placed on a performance improvement plan for using his mobile phone at work and that there was a “clique” in the unit where he worked.  He also complained that healthcare assistants were not invited to multi-disciplinary team meetings about service-users and that they were never asked for their opinions regarding the care provided to service users.

It is apparent from his submission that he had a difficult relationship with his line manager who, he said, “undermined my own experience as a HCA (healthcare assistant) and my experience and qualification as a Social Care Practitioner.”  On one occasion, the complainant said he was called out of a staff meeting into the office of his manager, a clinical nurse manager, and told that his attendance and punctuality were being monitored.  On another occasion, he was questioned about a broken television in the unit where he worked.  He felt that he was subordinate to other staff and that he was “pushed to one side” and that his opinion didn’t matter. 

The complainant referred to disciplinary sanctions and he said that he was issued with a verbal warning for a trivial matter.  At the hearing, the respondent’s services manager explained that this related to the complainant’s comments about a colleague’s sexual orientation.  He said that he was also disciplined for leaving work early when his mother was admitted to hospital.  The respondent’s services manager said that no action was taken when they were informed of the reason why the complainant left work.  

While it is apparent that he wasn’t happy in his job, the complainant said that he didn’t make a complaint and he didn’t seek support from anyone, although SIPTU is organised in the respondent organisation.  He said that he didn’t join the union.  He said that he talked to members of the HR department on several occasions, and he spoke to the services manager in his unit.  Following his brother’s death, he said that he was able to talk to colleagues about what he was going through and his job was a support, as he was kept busy and focussed on the challenges associated with looking after the service-user.

When he was asked why he waited until six months after he left his job to raise a formal grievance, the complainant said that, following the death of his mother, he was grieving, and it took him some time to get organised enough and to be able to reflect on his experiences.

Documents submitted in evidence by the respondent show that in November 2017, the complainant contacted the HR department on two occasions; once to complain about his line manager and the second time to complain that his roster was being changed without notice.  He was asked to formalise his complaints in writing; however, no further details were submitted.  It appears from the correspondence that, in March 2018, the complainant applied for a job with the organisation where he now works.  His mother died in tragic circumstances in April 2018 and he did not return to work with the respondent.  The documents show that he was on compassionate leave from April 9th to 14th.  On April 19th, a member of the HR department wrote to him, offering condolences on his mother’s death and asking him to get in touch.  He was also advised about the availability of the employee assistance service.  There was no reply to this letter and on May 1st, the HR assistant wrote again.  Despite his unauthorised absence, the HR department did not cease paying the complainant’s wages, but, in the letter of May 1st, he was advised that he would not be paid if he didn’t get in touch.

On May 25th, a third letter was sent to the complainant, again expressing sympathy to him and his family.  He was asked to contact the HR department by May 29th and informed that, if he did not do so, his employment would be terminated.  When there was no contact, a letter of termination was issued on June 1st.

At the hearing, the complainant said that he started working with his current employer in June 2018.  Six months later, on December 4th 2018, he sent an e mail to the HR department, setting out his grievances.  Although he was informed that the respondent organisation was dealing with his complaints, he did not wait for them to complete their investigation and he submitted a complaint to the WRC on January 14th 2019.

It is the respondent’s case that no formal action was taken by the complainant during his employment that would have allowed them to address his grievances.  If he had provided details of his grievances, they could have been dealt with while he was employed.  For the respondent, Mr Whelan argued that the complainant did not act reasonably by lodging a complaint six months after he left his job.

At the hearing of this matter on April 5th 2019, the complainant articulated his dissatisfaction with how he was treated during his employment with the respondent.  Having reflected on what he said, it seems to me that much of his discontent arises from his sense that his experience and qualifications were not valued.  It is evident that he found it difficult to accept the authority of his manager.

The respondent company has a relationship with SIPTU and the complainant could have got advice and support from a union representative.  Apart from the seven months during which he was directly employed, the complainant had a long and positive relationship with the organisation and he had a responsibility to deal with his grievances in a constructive manner.  I accept however, that he must have been devastated following the death of his younger brother and his mother was very ill at the time that it was hard for him to deal with his grievances in a rational manner. 

As an alternative, he took a different course of action, and early in 2018, he was actively looking for a new job.  A document submitted in evidence by the respondent shows that on March 9th 2018, another healthcare organisation wrote to the respondent to say that “We have hired (name of complainant) as a social care worker…” The complainant gave the name of the respondent as his current employer and his new employer was seeking a reference.

It is my view that, having decided to move on, in December 2018, it was not acceptable for the complainant to look for an investigation into grievances which he was asked to articulate in November 2017.  By leaving his job in April 2018, he took a specific route to resolution, and that was to sever all his ties with the respondent.  This was not an unreasonable response from someone who was unhappy in his job.  Six months later however, it was not reasonable to expect the respondent to deal with issues that could have been addressed while he was still in employment.

At the end of the hearing, the complainant said that he had brought into the open all the issues that he was unhappy about during his employment and I find that the process of conducting the hearing and of giving him an opportunity to be heard, served some benefit.

I recommend that the respondent takes no further action regarding these grievances and the matters should now be considered as closed.

On his complaint form, the complainant said that this complaint relates to a proposal to transfer him to another sector with no notice. 

The respondent argued that this complaint has been submitted out of time.

At the hearing, it became apparent that this issue is not related to any provision of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994.  Also, this complaint was submitted more than six months after the date of the complainant’s termination of employment and cannot be associated with a potential breach of the legislation that occurred during his employment.

As this complaint has been submitted out of time, I decide that I have no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matters complained of. 

On his complaint form, the complainant said that this complaint relates to the respondent’s intention to initiate disciplinary proceedings because he left the workplace while his mother was sick in hospital.

The respondent argued that this complaint has been submitted out of time.  Also, for the respondent, the services manager said that when the complainant left work early, they were not aware that his mother was admitted to hospital and that this was the reason he left work.  When they became aware of the reason he left, no further action was taken.

It is apparent that this complaint is not related to any provision of the Organisation of Working Time Act.  The complaint is out of time as it was submitted six months after the complainant left his employment.  Finally, the respondent’s decision not to continue with a disciplinary investigation in the circumstances of the complainant’s mother’s illness makes any complaint invalid.

As this complaint has been submitted out of time, I decide that I have no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matters complained of. 

Grievances, complaints submitted out of time