Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Employee

Daycare employer

Representatives

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Unfair Dismissal under the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969

---

07/09/2020

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The finalisation of this decision was delayed due to the impact of Covid 19.

The worker submitted that she was employed on a Community Employment scheme.

The worker submitted that she made complaints regarding other employees not wearing personal protective equipment.  She submitted that she was mocked for being the only employee following the Covid protocols.

The worker submitted that she had seen a notice indicating that the employer could not hold board meetings in the building but that it was ok for her and colleagues to work in the building.

The worker submitted that she reported the issues to the Health and Safety Authority and raised the issue with management.  She said that she was informed that the employer could not operate a one-way system as to do so would mean having to leave the doors open.  She was told that this would not be possible in the Irish weather.

The worker submitted that had a conversation with the employer on 10 August which resulted in her being unfairly dismissed without notice on 14 August.

The employer submitted that there were difficulties in running its operations during the Covid pandemic.  It noted that here were two separate buildings on the premises, one operating a day-care centre, the second providing services to the elderly. The employer submitted although its day-care premises were closed during lockdown, it had come of the staff members on site doing some cleaning and preparation work before the reopening of its services.

The employer submitted that the complainant had raised issues with people not wearing PPE but that it had looked at the matter and had concluded that it was possible to be in attendance in the day-care centre while it was not providing service and to work on cleaning and preparations without encountering any other staff members in close proximity.  The respondent acknowledged that some staff may have not been wearing PPE when they were alone, having a cup of tea or if they were in single occupancy offices.

The employer submitted that when the worker returned to work but complained about the possibility of Legionnaires Disease in the building (due to it having been unattended for a period).  It was pointed out to her that the system had been regularly used and the issues with standing water did not arise.

The worker did not return to work and when she was contacted by staff, who attempted to contact her a number of times, she ‘got all worked up’ and indicated that she would not be returning to work.  She was informed that the employer would not be extending her probation and a letter to that effect issued

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. Having regard to the evidence of the employer I note that it tried on multiple occasions to contact the worker.

The worker refused to return to the workplace, despite the assurances provided to her regarding the wearing of PPE and the procedures in place to ensure compliance with the directions from the Government regarding limiting the spread of Covid 19.

Having regard to the documentary evidence submitted regarding policies and the contemporaneous notes provided by the employer, I conclude that they made a number of efforts to engage with the worker and to get her to return to work.  Accordingly, I am not satisfied that she was treated unfairly in regard to the termination of her probation, and I concluded that the worker has not established that she was not unfairly dismissed.

Industrial Relations Acts – unfair dismissal – not established.