Employee

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Manager of a Childcare Centre

A Childcare Company

Representatives

Not represented

Fiona Egan, Peninsula

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00044301-001

24/05/2021

“HS” commenced employment in May 2002 as a childcare assistant and she was promoted to the role of manager of the HS childcare centre in November 2011.  She earns a weekly wage of €721.60.  In 2020, the proprietor, “PT,” wanted to reduce her involvement in the business and she recruited a district manager for the three units.  It is apparent that, from the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, and the challenges that emerged for the childcare business, the relationship between HS and PT has deteriorated.  Relations become more difficult since the appointment of “DM” as district manager in November 2020.  DM has responsibility for the three centres owned by the employer.

On the e-complaint form that she submitted to the WRC on May 24th 2021, HS said that her employer “attempts to force a change in my working pattern unilaterally.”  By this she means that she is required to finish her working day in the office, from 4.00pm to 5.00pm, and not from home, which was the arrangement from August 2020.  She also claims that her responsibilities have been reduced due to the appointment of the district manager.  She said that she has re-shaped her responsibilities around her current work pattern and that it is a challenge to revert to her earlier way of working.  HS attempted to resolve this matter when she submitted a grievance in April 2021, but she said that her employer is “adamantly pursuing this.”  She feels that her employer is attempting to diminish her role and to push her into terminating her employment.  As the grievance process has not ended with a satisfactory outcome for HS, she is seeking a recommendation that might provide a more acceptable solution.  

Chronology of Events Leading to this Grievance

In March 2020, following the closure of childcare centres due to the Covid-19 pandemic, HS had a difference of opinion with PT regarding wages for staff.  In April, wages were reduced and HS complained to PT about not communicating with her about this.

In June 2020, the Department of Children and Youth Affairs announced that childcare centres could re-open on June 29th.  HS and PT had a difference of opinion regarding whether to open in June, or later, in July.  HS felt that they hadn’t got enough time to properly prepare for the re-opening.  At a meeting on June 17th, HS said that PT said that she wasn’t “covering her back.”  She said that they agreed that it was important for them to work together and she reminded PT of the need to recruit new staff.

In August 2020, HS started working from home from 4.00pm until 5.00pm every day.  This was to enable her to get work done without being disturbed.

HS said that September 2020 was a stressful month, with the re-opening of the three centres and a shortage of staff.  She said that she was covering the management function in two centres.  In October, she received a 3% pay increase, although she said that two of her colleagues got a 10% increase.

In November 2020, a new district manager was appointed.  PT told HS that DM “was stepping in” and she was stepping back.  HS said that this appointment was made without advertising it and without consultation with her.  She feels that DM had a negative attitude to her from the start.

DM issued new contracts to all staff and HS said that the staff were disappointed with them.  HS asked DM to arrange a meeting with the staff to discuss the contracts, but DM resisted this.  HS said that DM accused her of “rubbing her negativity off on the staff.” 

A meeting took place in December 2020, chaired by DM.  DM sent the agenda to HS, but she didn’t get a chance to issue it to the staff, because she was so busy.  DM blamed HS for the staff not having a copy of the agenda in advance.

Also in December, DM took over the recruitment of new staff, writing official letters and providing references for employees who had left.  Around the same time, HS said that she explained to DM how stressed she was feeling due to the staff shortages.  She said that DM suggested that she could work part-time.  She felt that she was constantly monitored by DM, and she gave an example, saying that on one occasion, DM said, “I see you haven’t opened your emails yet.”

In January 2021, the service opened for the children of front-line workers only.  HS said that she was told about staff who were laid off after the decision was made.  Two employees who were laid off were asked to work from home and were given holidays in return.  HS asked if she could work from home for one day a week to help her daughter who was attending school online, but this was refused.

Sometime between January and June 2021, HS said that she heard that DM discussed her qualifications with other staff, and that she stated that she didn’t hold a recognised qualification.  She said that this rumour had a devastating effect on her reputation, her self-confidence, and her emotional well-being.

In March 2021, the deputy manager in HS’s centre reduced her hours of work.  She went from full time to part-time so that she could bring her children to school and collect them afterwards.  From then on, HS had no deputy manager in the afternoons, and she was asked to change her work pattern to suit the needs of the childcare centre.  While she asked for some understanding about her own circumstances, HS said that she was threatened with disciplinary action if she did not revert to working in the centre from 4.00pm to 5.00pm every day.  She said that DM “pursued this aggressively” and that she tried to find flaws between the hours of 4.00pm and 5.00pm so that she could justify her being on the premises.  She said that DM referred to a child having a temperature at the end of the day, and to one occasion when two play pods were put together.  She said that DM failed to acknowledge that the problem was the shortage of staff and her decision to facilitate the deputy manager’s request to work part-time.

From March to October 2021, HS said that there were continuous staff shortages, and that she had to provide cover in every classroom, including for a pregnant employee, and the kitchen and be available to deal with queries.  She said that she also had to complete her management role, and that DM was “bombarding me with emails and texts, demanding different documents or details and re-sending the emails when I hadn’t had a chance to reply.”

On April 28th 2021, HS said that she contacted DM and asked her to come to the centre to provide cover.  She said that DM asked her what she wanted her to do, saying, “I don’t have a magic wand.”  HS said that she and her colleagues found this remark to be inappropriate and disrespectful.

During the summer of 2021, HS said that she had to verify her qualifications as a secondary school teacher and to present evidence of her diploma in crèche management.  She felt that DM was trying to find a way to let her go.  She said that, due to the pressure and stress, she enrolled in a childcare course, at a cost of €1,200.

On July 22nd, HS said that she attended another meeting at which she was instructed to change her working pattern.  In August, she said that, with “all of the above saga,” she was diagnosed with anxiety and depression and she was prescribed medication.  At the end of August, two employees told her that DM gave them permission to not take a lunch break and to leave early.  This facility was revoked when HS challenged DM about it and demanded the same treatment.  

In September 2021, HS attended a meeting with PT at which PT said that, because she had made a report to Tusla, and, by making a complaint to the WRC, she had made things bad for her.  HS said that she replied that she had been left with no other options.  She said that DM was picking on her and interfering with her duties, causing confusion for staff and stress for her. 

On January 31st 2022, HS was accused of organising a staff meeting without permission from DM or PT and she was requested to attend a disciplinary investigation on February 3rd.  She wasn’t informed that she could be accompanied and she wasn’t provided with a copy of the disciplinary procedures beforehand.  She said that DM alleged that she organised the staff meeting, and she also conducted the disciplinary investigation.  She said she was blamed for the conduct of another employee, who used bad language.

In conclusion, in HS’s submission, she said that her right to dignity and respect at work has been violated and that DM has created a hostile environment.  She said that her self-confidence has been ruined and that her physical and mental health have suffered.

Setting out the employer’s response to HS’s grievances, Ms Egan said that, from the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, PT communicated with HS about how to manage the various challenges that came up in the childcare centres.  She said that, while HS disagreed with certain decisions made by PT, the owner is entitled to run her business as she sees fit. 

By November 2020, Ms Egan said that the owner wanted to reduce her involvement in the business and she brought a district manager on board.  This person’s job was to manage the paperwork and human resources issues and to improve how the three childcare centres were run.  HS’s job did not change as her responsibility was to manage one of the childcare centres on a day-to-day basis.  The district manager has taken over some of the administrative duties that were previously done by HS.

In August 2020, with the approval of PT, HS started working from home between 4.00pm and 5.00pm to catch up on paperwork.  It is the employer’s case that this arrangement was always intended to be temporary and in April 2021, she was asked to remain at work in the office until 5.00pm.  HS said that she wouldn’t be able to work in the office after 4.00pm because she had to take care of her daughter.  DM suggested that HS bring her daughter, who is aged 14, into the office for her last hour, but HS refused to agree to this. 

Ms Egan referred to the very serious allegations of bullying and harassment HS has made in documents submitted in preparation for the hearing of this matter, although these allegations were not raised in the complaint form which HS submitted on May 24th 2021.  Ms Egan stated that HS has not been bullied, but she has been instructed to revert to her original working arrangements and to remain in the childcare centre where she is the manager until 5.00pm every day, so that she is available for to meet parents. 

With the recruitment of DM as district manager, the majority of HS’s administration and HR duties were taken from her and this allowed her to focus solely on the childcare service and to manage the childcare assistants.  DM had noticed that HS wasn’t in the centre when children were being dropped off or collected, and it was her view that she should be in the centre for 40 hours each week.  She was facilitated in her need to take care of her daughter by keeping her start time at 8.45am and by allowing her to collect her daughter from school and bringing her to the crèche at 4.00pm.

On April 23rd 2021, HS raised a grievance with PT.  At a meeting on April 28th, HS raised the issue of staff shortages and it was agreed that more employees would be recruited.  It seems that no agreement was reached regarding HS being present in the office until 5.00pm.  On May 14th, HS wrote to PT claiming that the working from home arrangement was an implied part of her contract and that she had re-shaped her duties around this.  It is the employer’s position that HS’s administrative duties have reduced since the recruitment of the district manager in November 2020.

In her submission, Ms Egan referred to a relied-upon academic text, “McDermott on Contract Law”[1] and the “notoriety” of a custom, before it can be held to be an implied element of a contract.  She also referred to the precedent case of O’Reilly v Irish Press[2] which also referred to the requirement that “a custom or usage of any kind” must be “…so notorious, well-known and acquiesced in that in the absence of agreement in writing it is to be taken as one of the terms of the contract agreed between the parties…”

Ms Egan submitted that there is no clear evidence to support the assertion that the “implied” term in HS’s contract is intended to be permanent because HS agreed that its purpose was to allow her to complete some administrative work without being disturbed.  It is the employer’s case that this work is no longer required.

On May 14th 2021, HS was informed that it was a reasonable management instruction for her to return to completing her final working hour of the day in the office and that failure to do so could result in disciplinary action.  She submitted a complaint to the WRC on May 24th 2021, and in June, she submitted further documents setting out other allegations that she wanted to be investigated.

Ms Egan said that, like many childcare centres across the country, the employer’s business was affected by staff shortages.  PT made efforts to recruit new staff, constantly engaging with Indeed.ie on regular recruitment campaigns.  In November 2020, DM was appointed to relieve HS of her administrative tasks and she took on responsibility for recruiting new staff.

In her submission, Ms Egan said that HS’s salary was increased by 3% in September 2020, and that this, and the appointment of DM as district manager, were positive efforts of the employer to deal with the issues raised by HS as issues of concern.

Statement of HS at the Hearing

At the hearing, HS said that everything was going well until the start of the Covid-19 pandemic.  She said that she disagreed with the owner about the staff being advised to apply for social welfare support on March 13th 2020.  In the end, it was agreed that the staff would be paid for two weeks.

Following this disagreement, HS said that there was a further issue between her and PT about the date that the childcare centre was to re-open in June 2020 and, in September, there was a problem with a shortage of staff.

In August 2020, PT agreed that HS could work from home from 4.00pm until 5.00pm, which was the last hour of the working day.  HS said that the purpose of this was so that she could focus on paperwork without being disturbed.

In October 2020, HS said that she asked for a pay increase to reflect the change in her responsibilities.  She was given a pay rise of 3%, whereas she said that two of her colleagues got an increase of 10%.

In November 2020, HS said that a new role of district manager was created, without being advertised and without consultation with her.  HS said that DM had a negative attitude towards her from the start.  She said that her own responsibilities were changed, and she felt that she had become dispensable.

Employees in the company were issued with contracts of employment and HS said that DM told her that she had generated a negative view of the contract among the staff.

At a staff meeting in December 2020, HS said that DM told her that there would be a lot of changes.  She said that she was informed that she only had responsibility for one branch and not for another centre for which she had done a lot of administration.  DM told HS that she no longer had responsibility for recruitment and that she wasn’t to write references for former employees.  She said that DM observed when she didn’t read her emails. 

In January 2021, childcare centres in Ireland re-opened for the children of frontline staff.  HS said that no one knew what was happening, as some employees were laid off and some were at work.  She said that later in January, DM told her that there wasn’t enough work for her to do at home between 4.00pm and 5.00pm and she instructed her to remain at work for the final hour of the day.  HS said that she told DM that this was unfair.  She said that in April 2020, the staff who were on lay-off were permitted to do work from home.  She said that she was treated differently to other staff.  When I asked her for examples of this, she said that DM insisted that she take a one-hour lunch break, when others were allowed to take their breaks at the end of the day.

HS claims that she has been bullied by DM and, as an example, she said that, on March 21st 2021, she was asked to sign a policy on purchasing, when she hadn’t had an opportunity to read the policy. 

HS said that DM took documents from her office without her knowledge, which, she said, was disrespectful.  She said that there has been excessive monitoring of her work and that DM deals with employees, and that everyone is confused.

At present, HS said that she is trying to do her job without having too much communication with DM.  She said, “we talk about work.”  She said that she and DM have to co-operate because of their responsibilities, but she feels that DM is waiting for her to make a mistake and then it will be blown out of proportion.  She said that DM “speaks to me about small things” and that she is treated less favourably compared to others.

In response to the employer’s submission, HS said that she went on holidays in August 2020 and that she had to isolate for five days on her return.  She said that she got a lot of work done when she was at home because she wasn’t disturbed and she asked PT if she could work from home from 4.00pm until 5.00pm every day.  She said that there was no discussion about trying this for a while and she thought it was the best option for her and for the centre.  In April 2021 however, she was instructed by the district manager that she was to remain at work until 5.00pm.  She was told that there was no one to relieve a colleague who was pregnant.  HS said that the deputy manager’s hours were reduced and now there is no one to take over when she herself is not in the centre.  She said also that they used to have a supervisor who could provide cover.  HS said that she had a few meetings about the request to her to remain at work until 5.00pm and then she was threatened with disciplinary action.  She said that since she resumed working in the centre until 5.00pm, no parent has ever looked for her.

HS said that DM referred to two incidents that occurred between 4.00pm and 5.00pm, when two pods were put together in the centre, and another occasion when one of the children had a temperature.  She said that the district manager said that a health and safety issue arose because she wasn’t present.  She said that she was also instructed to take one hour for lunch.  She submitted a grievance to PT, but she got no flexibility regarding her requests.

Summarising her grievances, HS said that things went wrong when she disagreed with how things were handled in the childcare centre in the early stage of the pandemic.  She said that PT accused her of “not having her back.”  She said that no one has been threatened with disciplinary action as often as she has.  When it’s convenient, she said that she has to do what everyone else does, and then she’s treated differently because she’s a manager.  She said that there are different rules for different people and that it’s not a nice place to work.

Concluding her statement, HS said, “I want to be left to do my job in peace.  I don’t want to be monitored with a magnifying glass.”  She said that everyone makes mistakes but that she is pursued for trying things.

When I asked HS what was needed to sort things out between her and DM, she said that “a more human attitude” was required and “more integrity between words and actions.”  She referred to the policy that only one person is to be on holidays at any one time, and then two or three are allowed to go.  DM replied that the holiday policy has just been reviewed and that normally, two people can be on holidays at the same time in the summer months.  She said that there has been an issue with staff not keeping three days of annual leave for the closure at Christmas and the new year.  She said that HS took a week’s holidays in August 2021 without her approval, although she told the accounts department that she approved it.  She was on holidays at the time herself.  When she asked HS about it, she replied, “you did tell me I could take it.”

Statement of the District Manager (“DM”) at the Hearing

DM said that she has worked in the childcare sector for 25 years and that she was brought into the company by PT in November 2020.  Her role was to develop the business model.

When she joined, DM said that she noticed a lot of health and safety issues and she tried to put policies in place to sort these out.  She said that she tried to support HS in her job as manager of one of the centres.  She said that she noticed that staff were taking unpaid leave and she put a policy in place for this.  She said that enrolments were not being accepted so that staff could take leave.  She said that if that continued, they would have no business.  DM said that she thinks that the changes didn’t go down well and when she asked HS to do things, there was a challenge, and she would then explain that her request was a management instruction.  She said that managers of the other centres took on board her support “with gusto.”

DM said that she feels that she’s “tip-toe-ing” around in HS’s centre so that no one is upset.  She said that when she introduced certain procedures, they were not accepted.  She gave an example of food items being purchased and the kitchen being over-stocked, with the result that food goes to waste.  She introduced a purchasing procedure and asked HS to sign it.  DM said that she is “not stepping into” HS’s role and that her job is to be a go-between among managers.  

DM referred to an incident with a child who had a high temperature when she happened to be in HS’s centre at 5.00pm one evening.  She said that the little boy fell asleep and the staff on duty were panicking.  She said that she guided them to put on personal protective equipment and to isolate the child.  In another incident, the staff on duty were trying to manage two separate groups of children and they wanted to put them together, although the advice from Tusla was they were to be kept separate.  Staff were trying to manage answering the door to parents.  DM said that they now have an assistant manager in place and an extra staff member, who is not part of the required ratio of staff to children.  She said that there are generally two senior staff on duty, one in the pre-school and one in the centre where HS works.

In response, HS said that this issue arose because the centre is short-staffed.  She said that DM allowed a staff member to take a day off today as a surprise for her boyfriend.  She said she herself raises concerns about health and safety all the time.

DM said that she has tried to work with HS.  She expects them the three managers to take on changes in a positive way and to let her know if they have concerns.  She said she has walked in on conversations where she heard HS speaking in a negative manner about her.  She said that she wants to work with the managers as a team. 

When I asked her about the disciplinary action that was initiated regarding HS refusing to remain in the centre until 5.00pm, DM said that she followed guidance from Peninsula on this matter.  She said that no disciplinary sanction resulted from this.  However, she said that an investigation has begun into an incident that occurred in February 2022, about a month before this hearing.

Statement of the former Employee at the Hearing

At the hearing, this former employee said that she used to work in the “wobblers’ room” in the childcare centre and that she left after her maternity leave.  She said that she didn’t feel safe and that she believes that her dismissal was constructive.

Having been the manager of the HS childcare centre since 2011, from August 2020, HS worked from home from 4.00pm until the end of her working day at 5.00pm.  It seems that this arrangement came about when HS informed PT that she would be more productive at home because she wouldn’t be disturbed.  On April 14th 2021, DM asked HS to revert to her former schedule from the following Monday.  She confirmed this in an email on April 15th.  DM said that this was to ensure that a member of management was on site up to 5.00pm and because the need for HS to carry out office duties had reduced since her appointment.  In the same email, DM instructed HS to take her lunch break during the working day and not at the end of the day.

On April 23rd, HS submitted a formal grievance to the business owner, PT.  HS said that she wasn’t consulted about the change, and that she needed to leave work at 4.00pm to collect her 14-year-old child from school.  It seems that, around this time, she also reported to Tusla that the centres were under-staffed.

Notes were provided of a meeting that took place was held on April 28th, between the owner, PT and HS.  HS disagreed that she had suggested that the business required a district manager; she said that she looked for more staff.  PT and HS agreed that there was less paperwork for HS to do since DM came to work as district manager.  PT insisted that HS should remain at work until 5.00pm and that this was in the interest of the business, and specifically, for health and safety reasons.  HS said that it didn’t suit her to remain in the centre until 5.00pm because she needed to take care of her child.  PT suggested that HS bring her child to the centre for the last hour of the day, and she offered her the option of part-time work.  They agreed that they would talk again in two weeks.

HS wrote to PT on May 14th, saying that it was her view that the working from home arrangement for the final hour of the working day was permanent, although there was no document to confirm this.  She said that she had “re-shaped my other responsibilities around this pattern which makes it a challenge to revert from both a time and cost perspective.”  She said that the re-distribution of tasks “seems to be an attempt to diminish my role…with a view to constructively pushing me towards termination.”  She said that there was “no real justification to revert back to what was previously agreed to be a new term to my employment.”

PT replied, suggesting that the arrangement was not agreed and that HS was “doing it without us knowing.”  HS was instructed to work in the office from 4.00pm until 5.00pm from May 17th and she was informed that failure to do so would result in a disciplinary hearing. 

HS wrote again to PT on May 17th, reiterating that they had agreed in August 2020, that HS could work from home from 4.00pm to 5.00pm.  She said that PT formally agreed to this change.  She asked for clarification about the reason for disciplinary action.

On May 18th, PT replied and said that there was no formal change to HS’s work pattern and that she was required to resume her original working arrangements.  She said that “any disciplinary action will be in line with the procedures outlined in our Company Handbook.”

HS replied on May 24th, the same day that she submitted this grievance to the WRC.  She said that she found PT’s request to her to change her work pattern to be “ungrounded” and that the fact that she was pursuing the matter was having an effect on her contract with the company, her performance, her health and her well-being and that of her family.  PT replied that her position remained that asking HS to remain at work until 5.00pm was a reasonable management instruction.  She said that if HS failed to adhere to the instruction, disciplinary action may be taken.

The next record of a meeting having taken place is a note of a meeting on July 22nd 2021, attended by HS, DM and PT.  In the notes, which were taken by DM, PT referred to the meeting as “an informal meeting surrounding the current issue of (HS) not completing her full 40-hour shift, as stated in her contract of employment, within the crèche facility as directed since April 2021.”  PT set out the reasons for requiring HS to work until 5.00pm, stating that parents expected a manager to be available when they are collecting their children and that staff required the support of a manager at the end of the day, when parents were calling in.  She also stated that the administrative duties that HS used to do had reduced since DM joined the business.  PT repeated her offer to HS that she could bring her daughter to the centre at 4.00pm every day and that consideration would be given to part-time working.  She said that HS must revert to working full-time in the office from Monday, July 26th and that failure to do so would result in disciplinary action.

On July 27th, DM discovered that HS was rostered to work from 7.45am until 4.00pm.  When she was asked to attend the centre until 5.00pm every day, HS replied that she had been working in excess of 40 hours a week for the previous two months and that the centre was short-staffed.  She advised DM that it was her responsibility to ensure that staffing levels were adequate.  In August 2021, HS agreed to revert to working in the office from 4.00pm to 5.00pm.  She said that she agreed under protest, until the outcome of this hearing.

The arrangement to work from home for the last hour of the working day commenced in August 2020, nine years after HS was promoted to the role of centre manager.  She said that she was more productive when she wasn’t disturbed.  She worked from home from 4.00pm to 5.00pm for eight months, before she was asked to revert to her previous schedule.  She objected to reverting back to the previous arrangement, because she needed to collect her daughter from school at 4.00pm.  It is the management’s position that HS’s role as crèche manager should be carried out in the crèche where she is visible and available to parents and staff.  The re-distribution of administrative tasks has allowed HS to spend more time on this important aspect of her job.  I find no substance in HS’s argument that the delegation of administration and the request to her to revert to her previous schedule was motivated by a desire to influence her to leave her job.  Having recruited a district manager, albeit without consulting with HS, there was less administrative work that was suitable for doing at home.  The employer decided that the best use of HS’s time was in the workplace and it is my view that this was not unreasonable.

On August 13th, HS wrote to the WRC, complaining that she had been targeted by DM on behalf of her employer and that the intention was “to remove me from being a critical employee to an expendable one.”

HS wrote to the WRC again on October 10th 2021.  It appears from her letter that, following an altercation about lunch breaks between her and DM on September 10th 2021, PT requested a meeting with HS on September 14th.  HS’s notes state that she told PT that DM was employed, not to assist her, but “to harass me until I left the job.”  They discussed the fact that HS had made a report to Tusla and had submitted a grievance to the WRC.  HS said that she had tried to engage with PT, but that there was “zero understanding on her side after my 19 years of work.”

Before the hearing on this matter, HS submitted a copy of an invitation to a meeting to investigate a staff meeting that was held on January 18th 2022, without following the staff meeting policy, and also, why she didn’t provide a copy of the minutes and agenda to the managers when requested.  The meeting took place on February 3rd 2022.

On March 8th, in preparation for this hearing on March 25th, HS sent a document to the WRC, setting out the chronology of events since March 2020, until the investigation meeting on February 3rd 2022.  On March 14th, having reviewed the employer’s submission, she sent a document in response.   All of the substance of this response was presented at the hearing.  On March 22nd, HS submitted two separate documents alleging that she has been discriminated against on the grounds of nationality and that she is being harassed by PT and DM.  Included with her main documents were more than 30 supporting emails, meeting notes and letters, all of which I have reviewed in advance of coming to a conclusion regarding this dispute.  HS sent additional documents to the WRC after the hearing, which I have read and considered.  I have also reviewed the documents submitted on behalf of the employer.

I accept that, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, there was a delay arranging a hearing of the grievance that HS submitted to the WRC in May 2021.  Even in this circumstance, it is not acceptable in the intervening time to continue to submit more complaints, and to attempt to add further grievances to an original submission.

Context of this Dispute

The breakdown in relations between HS and her employer, PT, and the failure of HS and DM to develop a constructive working relationship is rooted in the decision of PT to step back from the business in August 2020 and to recruit a district manager.  It seems that HS got no notice of this decision, and, until she was introduced to DM in her centre in late August, she wasn’t aware that the creation of the new role of district manager would result in her having a new boss, and other significant changes in her responsibilities.

It’s clear that relations between HS and DM are stressed, combative and unpleasant.  It seems that there were stresses before DM was appointed, and the challenges associated with the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic for the childcare centres were difficult for everyone.  When PT decided to step back from running the company and to appoint DM as district manager, the problems persisted, and in fact, became more embedded.  While I accept that PT didn’t break any law by recruiting DM directly and by not advertising the position openly, as HS had worked in the company for 18 years, she was justified, in my view, in her sense of having been overlooked and disrespected.

After 18 years of reporting directly to the owner of the business, it was a considerable change for HS to come under the stewardship of a newly appointed district manager.  It is not unreasonable to think that she may have been ready to take on that role herself, because, at that stage, she had significant experience of management and she was completely familiar with the company.  If she had such ambitions, they were certainly dashed with the appointment of DM.  Added to this was DM’s responsibility to manage the three childcare centres in a consistent and compliant manner, which required her to be informed of everything that went on in the three centres.  This necessitated the removal from HS of some of her authority and responsibilities and I can appreciate that this must have been difficult to accept.

I think that any individual in similar circumstances might have felt overlooked and upset.  However, it is the nature of working life that impediments get in the way of progress; organisations change and employees, particularly at management level, are expected to adapt.  Sometimes the degree of adaptation is very difficult.  It is my view however, that the requirement to report to a new manager was not so radical, that, after a few weeks of getting to know one another, a civil and collaborative way of working could not have been developed. 

From DM’s perspective, she found herself in the unenviable position of being foisted on HS, in effect, as her new boss.  Relations were difficult from the start, partly because she wanted to put in place new policies and procedures and she wanted, and, in my view, was entitled to have full visibility of everything that went on in each of the three centres.  DM was responsible for a highly regulated business, operating in very challenging times during Covid-19 and she had many issues to resolve, including a shortage of staff.  It is regrettable that her relationship with one of her senior managers, HS, got off to such a bad start with the focus on the need for HS to return to working in the office from 4.00pm until 5.00pm.  While this was a reasonable instruction, HS’s resistance seems to have destroyed any possibility that the two managers could work together with any degree of collaboration.

The Scope of this Inquiry

The issue submitted to me for adjudication on May 24th 2021 is the single issue of the employer’s requirement for HS to work in the childcare centre and not from home from 4.00pm until 5.00pm.  This matter was not resolved when HS submitted a formal grievance in April 2021, and it wasn’t resolved either at an informal meeting in July 2021 between PT and HS.  After she submitted her initial request for an investigation, in August and October 2021 and in three separate submissions in March 2022, HS raised further complaints about how she is treated at work, including serious allegations of discrimination and harassment.  These allegations were submitted three days before the hearing on March 25th 2022.  They are not appropriate for consideration under the Industrial Relations Act, as the evidence must be heard under oath.

My purpose therefore, is to recommend a resolution regarding this employee’s dissatisfaction about her employer’s request to her to work in the office between the hours of 4.00pm and 5.00pm and not from home, as she had been doing from August 2020 until August 2021.  While I understand that grievance to be one element of the difficulties between HS and her managers, I cannot avoid the fact that the relationships between the managers in this workplace are dysfunctional and must be having an impact on the service.

It is my view that it is impractical and of no value to a childcare business for a manager to work from home for one hour at the end of the working day.  In the context of the centre where HS is the manager, it makes sense for her to be present when parents are collecting their children.  I accept that, as a business that opens for 10.5 hours a day, she cannot be on duty all the time.  She works an eight-hour day, she is entitled to holidays and she may have meetings or work to do that make her unavailable to parents or staff on occasion.  However, she is a manager of people, and the nature her job is such that it is reasonable for the employer to require her to be on the premises and not working from home.  I recommend therefore that HS completes her working day in the childcare centre.

As HS is committed to the childcare centre where she has worked for 20 years now, some intervention is required to unravel her sense of having been disregarded when the role of district manager was created in August 2020.  I recommend that the employer considers engaging a professional and skilled mediator, to engage with all three managers to find a more constructive way of working together.

Grievance, working from home