Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Care Support Worker

A Residential Care Service

Representatives

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 - 00002043

12/12/2023

The worker states that he has been working with the respondent company over the past 7 years as a Care Support Worker. He states that he was notified by management by email on 9 November 2023 that he had been put on paid leave “following concerns from a staff member”. The worker asserts that no reason was given in the email about the concerns raised and the worker was not told who had brought their concerns to the respondent’s attention or when the concerns were raised. The worker states that he was not informed as to who would be looking into the matter, how long it would take and how long the worker could expect to remain on paid leave.

The worker states that on 16 November 2023, he emailed the HR manager in head office and requested to know why he had been put on paid leave but to date has not received a reply. The worker states that he tried emailing the HR manager again on 11 December 2023 and it would appear that his email address had been blocked preventing him from contacting HR again.

In addition, the worker states that there is an outstanding issue dating from an alleged incident that was said to have occurred on 14 June 2023 wherein an alleged complaint was made against him by a service user of which the worker was notified in writing on 23 June 2023. The worker states that this  issue has not been resolved to date and is still outstanding.

The worker states that he became the shop steward in or around 3 October 2023 and was subsequently involved in talks with the local service manager in relation to the proposed Section 39 strike which was later called off.

At the hearing the worker states that he had a meeting with two representatives of the employer 12 days previously in relation to the allegations made against him. The worker states that at the end of the meeting the employer representatives informed him that a transcript would be made of same and they hoped to get it to him within a week which the worker states did not happen and as at the date of hearing, he still has not received same.

The worker states that he is extremely shocked and annoyed by the manner in which he is being treated by the employer. He states that the investigation is taking an excessive amount of time and cannot be justified. The worker states that he is suffering stress and anxiety by the actions of the employer. He states that it has resulted in significant reputational damage to him and his career. 

The employer did not attend the hearing on the within dispute.

The employer furnished a letter dated 8 January 2024 to the WRC which was outside the 21 day period outlining its objection to an investigation by an Adjudication Officer.

In the letter, the employer states that they have checked their records and have no record of having received the complainant’s initial email. The employer states that it is not aware of how or why the complainant’s subsequent email would be blocked.

The employer asserts that while the worker cites a delay, he has not mentioned that he had been on pre booked annual leave at that juncture. The employer states that the worker’s union official had also confirmed that the worker would not be available in that same period. The employer states that the worker had previously requested management to note that he did not wish to be contacted when he was scheduled to be off work.

The employer states that subsequent to his annual leave, the worker informed management that he required medication related to his mental health and that he required counselling. The employer states that it confirmed to the worker that it would not be appropriate to ask him to engage until he was deemed medically fit to engage. 

The employer states that it was aware that the worker was acting as shop steward as mentioned in his complaint form. The employer states that given the nature of the worker’s colleague’s allegation against him, the letter confirming the worker’s protective leave informed him that under these circumstances there was a balance of probability that the worker would not operate under the WRC’s Code of Practice which outlines the duties and responsibilities of employee representatives. The employer states that the worker was asked not to engage in any contact with any party, in person or otherwise, under the guise of his role as shop steward. The employer states that it informed SIPTU that the worker has been instructed not to operate as a shop steward unless there is a written agreement to change this.   

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

I have carefully examined the information heard at the hearing. While the employer did not attend the hearing, I have taken cognisance of the information detailed in the employer’s letter to the WRC dated 8 January 2024.

I note that the complainant was suspended from work on 9 November 2023. I note the testimony of the complainant with regard to the stress of the matter and the reputational damage which is impacting upon him. I note the complainant’s concerns with regard to the investigation process and the excessive length of time it is taking to reach an outcome of same.

Based on the information provided in the within dispute, I recommend that the investigation process be carried out fairly and in a timely fashion ensuring natural justice and that the respondent undertakes to conclude this investigation within 3 months of the date of this recommendation.

Industrial Relations Act