Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Healthcare Provider

Representatives

Peter Gilfedder IBEC

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00061595

17/08/2023

The Worker is a Healthcare Assistant who worked for the Employer for about 8 weeks in 2022.

The Employer dismissed the Worker. The Worker brought two separate complaints under the Industrial Relations Act. One of these was for constructive dismissal which the Worker does not actually allege occurred. As such she withdrew that complaint.

The Worker felt she wasn’t treated fairly from the start of her role.  She suffered with anxiety and believed nurses were gossiping about her.

She felt she was unfairly criticised. She was told not to wear long sleeved tops but didn’t have short sleeves to wear. She was bullied. Another staff member told her she was told not to be friends with her.

There was a clique running the area she was working in. She asked to be moved but the request was denied.

She was put on a support plan but it wasn’t a real attempt to help her. She was told to leave because of alleged abuse of a Resident. This didn’t happen.

She picked up agency shifts immediately after finishing but had a couple of weeks of lower pay.

In June there was serious incident involving the Worker. A resident had suffered a seizure. Despite the emergency the Worker failed to support the colleague attending the Resident.

Following this the Worker was put on a support plan. There were issues in relation to their performance.

In July there was a serious issue where the Worker shouted at a patient “are you deaf.” Another carer challenged the Worker who argued with her about this.

This incident was reported to management who met with the Worker. They determined that there was no improvement in her performance and felt they needed to terminate her employment. They paid her two weeks’ notice.

Following this termination there were a series of unusual events involving the Worker. She attended the workplace via a staff entrance unannounced. She then began sending unusual emails.  

The had to write out to her to tell her to not attend the workplace going forward.

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

I am satisfied that the Employer legitimately believed that there were performance issues involving the Worker. They were engaging with her but were seeing no improvement. It was a scenario that would likely lead to dismissal.

However, the Employer was obliged to follow some sort of fair procedure in determining whether or not to terminate the Worker’s employment. Particularly when allegations of wrongdoing were levelled at the Worker.

She denied having raised her voice to a resident, but the matter was not investigated. No process which adhered to the standards set out in S.I. No. 146/2000 (Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures) was followed.

However the Worker suffered no financial loss arising from the dismissal and she has not addressed her bizarre behaviour in attending and emailing the Employer after her dismissal. This would be unusual in any circumstances but is totally unacceptable in a healthcare setting.

While the Employer failed to adhere to the Worker’s rights when dismissing her I am unwilling to recommend any payment towards her in these circumstances.