Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Care Worker

Care Services

Representatives

Pat O'Donoghue SIPTU

Muireann McEnery Ibec

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-00016129-001

04/12/2017

The worker requests adjudication on a dispute she has with her employer regarding a suspension and investigation.

This dispute concerns a situation where the worker along with a number of others was suspended from her employment following a complaint.  In December 2014, she was advised of a complaint made to HIQA.  She was put on protective leave on 31 December 2014.  An external investigator was appointed to hear the complaint and in June 2015, the investigator found the complaint was not upheld.  On 18 December 2015, a grievance was submitted that the worker should not have been suspended, that there should have been a preliminary screening and that the unnecessary and lengthy period of the suspension and investigation caused undue stress and hardship on the worker.  The grievance process was completed on 2 February 2016.  On behalf of the worker it is argued that she should not have been suspended at the first point.  It is further argued that there was an undue lengthy time period between notice of complaint and outcome of grievance, resulting in the worker being out of her employment for some eight months. In the meantime, there had been a leak to the media causing embarrassment and distress.  The worker also did not receive any support on her return to work.  The worker claims that the grievance she had should have been upheld and she should receive compensation for the employer’s failure in this case and her losses while out of work.   

The employer’s representative stated that the worker in this case was one of a number of three who referred their claims to the WRC.  The other two had resolved their differences with the employer.     It was submitted that as this case has now been going on since effectively June 2015, it should be considered out of time.  The history of the case is that the worker was actually exonerated along with her colleagues and a letter confirming that was sent to all 11 staff concerned.  Counselling was offered to all and a Counsellor was available for 2 full days in a hotel in the location but no staff turned up.  The employer had no choice but to suspend the workers as this is a basic tenet of the policies which the employer is obliged to follow. It is argued that there were 11 people under investigation so there was not an inordinate delay in the investigation period.  Regarding return to work, the worker was offered support and counselling, she did not avail of the E.A.P. nor did she wish to change location.   The employer submits that the worker was found to have done nothing wrong, and this was confirmed to her.  The employer re-iterates that once a complaint was made to HIQA, there had to be an investigation and the outcome was no wrongdoing had occurred.  The employer cannot change the trajectory of the matter and submits that there has been an unreasonable delay on the part of the worker to pursue her case in the WRC.

The worker in this case, no doubt found herself in a very difficult and stressful situation when along with some 10 other colleagues, she was the subject of a complaint referred to HIQA.  The strict regulatory regime which governs the sector led to the immediate placement on protective leave.  I have reviewed the evidence and documentation in this case and I find that the employer did act in accordance with their own policies and procedures.  It appears that the worker was told, as were the families of the service users and media that the complaints were not upheld.  I note the employees were offered counselling and support and she received training in various relevant matters.

In the circumstances where the employer followed the rules and procedures, and supports and training were offered, I cannot find the employer acted wrongly in the matter.       I note that at the end of May 2018 some agreement appears to have been made with 2 colleagues who were in the same or similar situation.

As it is now some seven years since the start of this matter, I recommend that this case be closed by applying whatever arrangement was reached with her two colleagues to the worker in this case.