Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Maureen  Power

Garryowen Community Development Project

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Representatives

Frank McDonnell

Mike Cusack of Helix HR

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00060073-001

15/11/2023

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00060073-002

15/11/2023

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00060073-003

15/11/2023

The complainant claims she was unfairly dismissed and did not receive her statutory minimum period of notice or payment in lieu. The respondent denies the complainant was dismissed.

Summary of Respondent’s Case: the respondent confirmed the complainant started working for them on 10 February 2016 as a Parent and Child Home Programme Home Visitor. She worked on a part-time contract which stated the hours of work would vary on a weekly basis. The complainant was assigned families to visit and was expected to visit them for 2 half-hour sessions each week.

When the Covid-19 pandemic spread a Government decree meant that from March 2020 home visits were not possible. In September 2020 the respondent facilitated online video calls. The complainant said she could not do these as her home broadband internet was not powerful enough to enable a reliable online video calls. But she did want to do a video supervisor session. In-home visiting recommenced on 1 May 2022. The General Manager wrote to the complainant on 8 September 2022 asking if she wanted to stay on the panel of Home Visitors. This was subject to her agreeing to take up to 10 families on caseload and committing to completing relevant accredited training at QQI Level 6. The complainant never stated that she wanted to come back. The complainant replied that she did not consider this to be an offer of employment. The General Manager replied on 27 October 2022 that the respondent had secured funding to take on more families and “would like to start offering you families to work with”. He said they were looking for Home Visitors to taking up to eight families on caseload. On 24 October 2022 the complainant requested a statement of her average hourly rate of pay.

The complainant sent an email on 17 April 2023 requesting clarification of her position and the General Manager replied that as the complainant had not replied to the offer of taking families in September and October 2022 the respondent came to the conclusion that the complainant no longer wished to work with the respondent. The letter concluded that the respondent would not “be opening up any further discussions regarding the possibility of working with us in the future”.

The respondent submits there was no termination of employment and the allegation of unfair dismissal does not arise.

Summary of Complainant’s Case: the complainant says she starting working for the Garryowen CDP on 10 February 2016. She worked part-time and had been working with 4 – 7 families, as per her part-time contract. The Covid-19 pandemic stopped the work until it was carried out via zoom and WhatsApp calls. The families she worked with refused to carried out the work via zoom calls. Some of her colleagues continued working with their families via zoom and 2 other colleagues did not.

The complainant submits she continued to look for both training and new families as the Covid-19 restrictions lifted. But she was refused both. As time went on she looked for clarity on her role in writing. She got a letter from her line manager offering to put her on a panel for work and insisting on increasing her workload to 10 families and having to have QQ6 training and qualifications, which had been refused to her before.

She was refused a training course that all her colleagues had received. Then she was removed from the Garryowen CDP WhatsApp group. At no time was any explanation given as to why she was not given training or work. She sent 3 emails looking for clarification and then on 16 May 2023 she was dismissed in writing.

Findings and Conclusions: the respondent objected to me hearing this case as they said it had already been investigated and a decision issued in ADJ-00045719. I note in the decision that the unfair dismissal complaint was found to be misconceived as it was referred to the WRC before the alleged date of dismissal. The Adjudicator offered an opinion on the unfair dismissal but that was not the complaint being dismissed. I therefore consider that I have the jurisdiction to investigate the complaint of unfair dismissal.

The complainant was employed as a Parent Child Home Visitor and her contract stated she was “employed on a part-time basis and your hours will vary on a weekly basis.” In March 2020 the Covid-19 pandemic effectively closed the service to any face-to-face activity. The service tried to keep working via remote contact. The complainant made contact with some of the families through phone calls and messages. She did not engage in contact through zoom. She said this was her client’s choice but she also told the respondent that she did not have the broadband access to hold zoom meetings. This meant there was a period when she did not work for the respondent.

In October 2020 the Coordinator explained to the complainant that she would be expected to take on more families going forward but the complainant said she only wanted a few families, as she had previously.

There was correspondence from June 2021 and in October 2021 the General Manager explained that the programme was working with Home Visitors who were willing to take up to 10 families. And as the complainant had not indicated her willingness to do this she had not been offered work.

In September 2022 the General Manager contacted the complainant to tell her the Programme was adding to their current panel of Home Visitors. The complainant was asked if she was interested in staying on the panel, subject to agreeing to take on up to 10 families on caseload and also committing to completing relevant accredited training at QQI level 6. The complainant responded by saying she considered a redundancy situation had arisen. On 27 October 2022 the General Manager replied that they would like to start offering her families to work with; subject to a commitment to take on up to eight families. The complainant did not reply.

In April 2023 the complainant requested clarification on her position as a family worker with the respondent. The General Manger replied on 16 May 2023 saying that as the complainant had not replied to his letter of 27 October 2022 he had concluded that she no longer wished to work for the Programme and “We shall not, therefore, be opening up any further discussions regarding the possibility of working with us in the future.” This is the letter which the complainant claims to be her dismissal letter.

During a period of lockdown the complainant did not work for the respondent. This was mainly because she did not have broadband connection at home which would have allowed her to hold zoom meetings. As the Programme returned to face-to-face working the complainant was given the opportunity to return to work. She was asked to give a commitment to increase her caseload and give a commitment to undertake training towards a QQI level 6 qualification. The complainant wanted to return work with the caseload of up to four to seven families she had up to March 2020. The Coordinator gave evidence she explained the reasons for the changes to the complainant. It is my understanding that all Home Visitors were treated the same way.

My conclusion is that the complainant did not want to make the commitments she was asked to, in order to return to work. I accept the request for her to make these commitments by the respondent as reasonable, and falling in line with the parameters of her contract of employment. In these circumstances I find the complainant left her employment voluntarily and was not dismissed.

I have found the complainant was not dismissed. Therefore, as there was no termination of employment the complaint of payment for minimum notice cannot succeed.

CA-00060073-001: Unfair Dismissal: for the reasons given above I find the complainant was not unfairly dismissed and the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00060073-002 and CA-00060073-003: Minimum Notice: for the reasons given above I have found the complainant was not dismissed but left voluntarily. Therefore, she has no entitlement to payment for minimum notice and the complaint is not well founded.

Unfair Dismissal – left voluntarily