Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Healthcare Worker

A Healthcare Agency

Representatives

 Peninsula

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

IR - SC - 00002429

28/03/2024

The worker submits that a decision was made to exclude her from employment at an hospital without appropriate investigation.

The worker submits that she commenced employment on 20/12/2023 and remains an employee with the employer.  She submitted that she was contacted around 12/01/24 asking if she had worked a shift at a hospital on 09/01/2024.  She was not scheduled for that particular shift, had not attended and advised the employer of this.  The worker was told that another employee Ms A had been scheduled for the shift but that someone else had attended the shift on Ms A’s behalf and identified themselves as Ms A.  It was alleged that Ms A may have said to the hospital that it was the worker who in fact attended and that it was the worker who was alleged to have identified themselves as being Ms A.  The worker submitted that she was advised that an investigation of sorts took place and that owing to the safeguarding issue she was not allowed to do any shifts at the hospital.  The worker was not given a chance to see cctv or read any statements that supported what Ms A allegedly said and did not understand why Ms A might even have suggested it was her who attended.  The worker has now been told that she is barred from working at the hospital.  The worker confirmed that she has been offered other work by the employer but has not availed of this as she wants the issue resolved as it prevents her from ever working at the hospital.

The employer submitted that they were in a difficult situation as it was alleged that Ms A who was supposed to have attended her shift at the hospital did not in fact attend and that when Ms A was asked who attended instead of her she is alleged to have said it was the worker.  The employer requested details such as cctv, photos or interviews that might confirm or deny the allegations which the hospital was making.  Ms A had apparently confirmed that the worker was not in fact the person who worked at the hospital but would not name who that person was.  It appeared that Ms A may have initially implicated the worker but later withdrew this claim.  The employer said it was their understanding that the hospital had now put a ban on the worker and Ms A from ever working in the hospital despite allegations against her not being proven.  The employer informed the worker on 21/03/2024 that the allegations were unfounded but have no control over the ban that the hospital has put in place.  Ms A no longer works with the employer.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

The worker remains upset by allegations that were made and which she was never given significant opportunity to respond to.  The employer outlined the difficult position they are in as the hospital will not allow the worker to work at the hospital and albeit the worker has been offered other work by the employer the worker wants to have this matter resolved and in particular the ban lifted which stops her ever working at the hospital.  I note that Ms A is no longer an employer of the employer.

I note the difficulties of the employer in trying to resolve an issue when it would appear that the hospital refuses to engage with them, however, it is not clear that the employer has utilised all procedures available to them to try and reach a resolution.

I recommend, as follows:

The employer should engage with the hospital as a matter of urgency through whatever procedures, contracts, policies are available to them to allow for the worker’s dispute to be appropriately processed and addressed.

The employer should remind the hospital of the laws of natural justice with regards to allegations made against a worker as it is not clear that due process and procedure has been applied and in particular there remains a never-ending ban on the worker working at the hospital.

The employer should work with the hospital to implement policies and procedures that reduces the risks of allowing personnel to pretend to be another worker when working at the hospital in the manner in which may have occurred in this instant case. 

I recommend, as follows:

The employer should engage with the hospital as a matter of urgency through whatever procedures, contracts, policies are available to them to allow for the worker’s dispute to be appropriately processed and addressed.

The employer should remind the hospital of the laws of natural justice with regards to allegations made against a worker as it is not clear that due process and procedure has been applied and in particular there remains a never-ending ban on the worker working at the hospital.

The employer should work with the hospital to implement policies and procedures that reduces the risks of allowing personnel to pretend to be another worker when working at the hospital in the manner in which may have occurred in this instant case. 

Policies, procedures, laws of natural justice