LCR22175

CD/19/288

RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR22175

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 2015

SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969

PARTIES :               

NORTH TIPPERARY SCHOOL COMPLETION PROGRAMME - AND - A WORKER

DIVISION :

Chairman               :            Mr Haugh

Employer Member :             Ms Doyle

Worker Member   :              Ms Tanham

SUBJECT:

1. Wrongful Dismissal, Breach of Contract

BACKGROUND:

2. The worker made a complaint to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 on 27 August 2019. A Labour Court hearing took place on 26 November 2019.

3. WORKER'S CASE:

1. The worker claims that he was wrongfully dismissed from his employment by his former Employer.

2. The worker claims that he was ignored, belittled, isolated in the workplace and that he was unsupported in the workplace.

3. The worker claims that disciplinary procedures were not followed in relation to his dismissal.

4. EMPLOYER'S POSITION:

1. The Employer did not attend the hearing before the Court.

         The following is the recommendation of the Court:-

RECOMMENDATION :

The Court heard this matter in Thurles pursuant to section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 on 26 November 2019. "The Worker" represented himself at the hearing. There was no appearance by or on behalf of North Tipperary School Completion Programme (‘the Employer’).

The Worker – who is a qualified primary school teacher - was employed between 29 November 2018 and 11 April 2019 as a Project Worker supporting vulnerable students across three different schools. The Worker informed the Court that he experienced difficulties in his employment from the outset. He was not provided with an induction or training for the role. He received little or no support from his line manager and was not provided with necessary equipment.

During the Christmas vacation he was directed to attend for work in an insufficiently heated pre-fabricated building that lacked basic welfare facilities at the rear of one of the schools in his remit. He had to climb over a locked gate in order to gain entry to the premises. The Worker emailed his line manager on 9 January 2019 – and again the following day – requesting guidance and support. The Worker also made several unsuccessful attempts to contact the Chairperson of Committee and Human Resources section in Tipperary Education and Training Board.

There followed a tense meeting between the Worker and his line manager on 14 January 2019. A further meeting took place between the Worker and his line manager on 7 February 2019 at which the line manager raised two concerns she had with the Worker. The Worker continued to have concerns about the lack of support he was receiving from his line manager and he emailed her to this effect on the evening of 14 January 2019.

On Monday 4 March 2019, the Worker was directed to attend a meeting in one of the schools in his remit the following day. He was not told the reason for the meeting. The meeting was chaired by a school principal. Four allegations were raised against the Worker, without prior notice. The Worker again detailed his perception in relation to the lack of supports provided to him. He was suspended with effect from 4 March 2019. That suspension was subsequently confirmed by letter dated 8 March 2019 from the school principal.

On 26 March 2019, the Worker was informed by letter that an investigation into the four allegations raised against him was being outsourced to Graphite HR. When contacted by Graphite HR in relation to proposed terms of reference for the investigation, the Worker was informed that there were now six allegations against him. An investigation meeting took place with Graphite personnel on 3 April 2019 at which the Worker set out a robust written defence to each allegation and also reiterated his ongoing concerns about work practices and the lack of support he received from his line manager.

The Worker was subsequently dismissed with one week’s notice from his employment by letter from the Chairperson. The reason given for his dismissal was that the Worker had failed to “demonstrate [his] skills and ability to perform in [his] role as set out in the programme’s guidelines”. The Worker was advised of his right to appeal the decision within five days. He lodged a written appeal. The Chairperson wrote to him again approximately one month later and advised: “the management committee reviewed your appeal and it was decided not to hear it. The decision to dismiss stands.”

Decision

It appears to the Court that the Worker was penalised in a most egregious manner, culminating in his dismissal, for attempting to raise legitimate concerns with his Employer about his working conditions and the lack of support he received from his line manager. Having raised those concerns, the Worker was immediately made the subject of investigation and that investigation, without any clear explanation, quickly morphed into a peremptory dismissal hearing. Furthermore, the Worker was inexplicably denied any meaningful appeal of the decision to dismiss him on short notice.

In all the circumstances, the Court is of the view that the Worker was treated very unfairly and accordingly measures the compensation payable to the Worker at €5,000.00.

The Court so decides.

                                                                     Signed on behalf of the Labour Court

                                                                       Alan Haugh

CC                                                                 ______________________

7 January 2019                                          Deputy Chairman