Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Health Care Assistant

A Health Care Agency

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts

CA-00019358-001

22/05/2018

The Worker claims that she commenced work with the Employer as a Health Care Assistant on 28 September 2017 and usually worked between 25 and 30 hours per week and was usually paid between €400 and €500 gross per week.

The following is a summary of the Worker’s case.

On 18 January 2018 an email was sent to the Worker’s Employer from a Manager in a location where the Worker was posted alleging that she was rude and abrupt and used foul language towards a porter. The Worker was informed of this on 25 January whilst out walking, and prior to starting work that day. She said that she was absolutely shocked and very upset to have this labelled against her. She said she rang her Employer later that day and looked for a copy of the Manager’s report, which she received at a later stage by email. Attached to that email was a letter from her own Employer stating, "that they have a number of concerns with my performance". The Worker said that these alleged concerns were never brought to her attention heretofore and she was totally at a loss to understand what these concerns were.

She said she was called to a "A Probationary Review" meeting by her Employer; where no evidence was produced in relation to her performance. It was confirmed that the only evidence received was an email from the Manager at the location of her work. She said that she put a number of written questions to her Employer concerning the allegations, however the answers received were vague and varied and did not address the "other concerns" as outlined in their letter of 25 January 2018.

She said she was not given the opportunity to review or sign the minutes at the conclusion of the meeting and was escorted to the front door of the building after the meeting. She said that the minutes were posted out to her were factually incorrect and contained numerous errors. She said that she appealed the decision by email on 3 February 2018 outlining the grounds for her appeal, which was held on 22 February via phone.

At the appeal she said that she read out a letter that she had sent to the Manager that reported her for being rude and abrupt and used foul language towards a porter. The meeting concluded and resumed the following day. On the resumption of the meeting the Worker was immediately told that her appeal was not successful. She said that her Employer failed to address any of the items in her email outlining her grounds for the appeal. The minutes she received were factually incorrect, and she was not given the opportunity to review the minutes.

She said that she received a letter on 27 February informing her that her appeal failed, and the original decision made was upheld. She claims that due process was not applied by her Employer during her hearing and subsequent appeal, despite the original email written by an external Manager claiming she had investigated the matter; no evidence in the form of witness statements, reports or evidence of an investigation was ever produced. She said that she strongly refutes the allegations made against her and sought written statements and further evidence from her Employer. However, they confirmed that they had no other evidence and a named witness who was present told the Worker that she did not hand in a statement. The trainee porter at the centre of this claim has told the Worker "that he did not want to get involved”. However, the Worker has bared the brunt of this and was dismissed. The Worker said that the Employer made multiple breaches of their own procedures and appear to just want to dismiss her.

The Worker said that she wants her job back.

The Employer did not attend the adjudication hearing and was not represented.

It is regrettable that the Employer did not attend the adjudication hearing to put forward its position in relation to the dispute.

I have listened carefully to the Worker’s submission and it is without doubt that these allegations lodged against her have caused her great distress. It is clear also that she feels that she did not get the appropriate opportunity to address the allegations from the external manager and worse again is the failure of her Employers to allege poor performance but never actually articulate what that poor performance was, so that she could defend her good name.

I find that the Worker gave an honest account of what she believed happened to her and there are significant gaps which she cannot fill in and without the Employer present remain a void in this story. Therefore, having listened carefully to the Worker’s submission and in the absence of any submissions to the contrary, I find that the Worker was unfairly dismissed as claimed.

Based on the uncontested submission of the worker, I find that the dispute of Unfair Dismissal is well founded. The Worker said that her ideal solution to this dispute is that she would recover her job.

Having considered all the evidence before me and in particular the fact that the Employer failed to answer many of the Worker’s questions and failed to attend the adjudication hearing, I deem that compensation is possibly the more suitable conclusion to this dispute.

Accordingly, I recommend that the Employer pay the Worker €2,000 (two thousand euro) in compensation.

Industrial Relations Acts – unfair dismissal – well founded - compensation