Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Regional Operations Manager

A Care Home Business

Representatives

  Appeared In Person

 No Appearance from any Company Representative

Act

Dispute Reference No.CA-000634-001

Date of Receipt

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

IR - SC - 00002612

10/05/2024

On 10 May 2024, the Worker, a Regional Operations Manager in a Care Home Company introduced a   Trade Dispute to the WRC. she sought an investigation of that dispute.

On 15 May 2024, the Employer was notified of the Dispute at the Company Central Headquarters.

On 19 May, the Worker provided an email address for the Company CEO, which was manned by his Personal Assistant. She also submitted a summary of the Dispute, which was in turn shared with the Employer.

On June 9, 2024, the WRC informed the Worker that as the Employer had not objected to her requested investigation, the matter would now proceed to a scheduled WRC Hearing.

On 4 July 2024, both Parties were invited to attend a hearing in the case scheduled for 9 September at 10 am. Submissions were canvassed in advance.

On 29 July 2024, the Employer made email contact the WRC. The author introduced himself as a Partner/ Director at the Business. He sought to update the contact details for the Employer and confirmed that the previously named CEO was no longer a Company Director. He inquired whether Mediation was an option.

“Also is Mediation a solution to this case?”

On 28 August 2024, I wrote to both Parties and confirmed that:

“It is however possible for Parties to participate in a collaborative problem-solving approach during an Adjudication hearing under the IR Act, 1969, if both Parties are comfortable with that approach “

I requested that the Parties reflect on a potential resolution in the dispute.

On the Morning of the 9 September 2024, the following email was received from the named Director of the Company

Your letter of August 28th refers. I have just returned from some time off and have just opened the letter, the contents which I note. Is it possible to defer todays proposed hearing, in an effort to reach a compromise on this? I am unable to attend and don’t have any company representative to attend.

I proceeded to hearing to meet the Worker, who presented alone, having travelled down the night before.

She expressed her disappointment at the nonappearance of the Employer in the case but agreed to my proposal to a short deferral in the matter to either explore an informal resolution or to return to a hearing involving both Parties during October 2024.

Later that day, both Parties were invited to a resumed hearing scheduled for 15 October 2024.

Once more, the Worker made a lone appearance at hearing.

The Employer did not attend the hearing or offer any reason for this nonappearance.

The Background and context to this Dispute arose from a continuous period of employment from December 2020 to 13 October 2023. Salary was €110.000 per annum with 10% bonus at year end.

16 December 2020 to January 2023 as Director of Nursing of a named Care Home.

January 2023 to date of leaving as an appointed Regional Operations Manger over at first 5 and then a later 10 care homes.

During this period, the Worker was redeployed, on consent to manage a Care Home in crisis within this geographical area.

It is her negative experience of this redeployment which resulted in her tendering her resignation as a last straw in September 2023.

The Worker opened her Dispute on her complaint form to the WRC which can be summarised.

The Employer operated a number of Care Homes around Ireland. The Worker had an incredibly positive work experience as Director of Nursing in the first care home, where she began to develop a support network with her fellow DONs.

The Worker applied for the role of a Regional Manager in January 2023 and was appointed.

 However, within   three months of having accepted   the Senior position of Regional Manager, she observed that the Company was entering a period of severe financial challenges and concurrent financial decline. The Senior Management team was in disarray with fractured Succession plans.

This was manifested by disharmony and accelerated exodus at Senior Level, an unsuccessful attempt to consolidate the business centrally and a steady stream of exodus of key players and suppliers.

The Worker took on regional management of 10 care homes, when a colleague departed the business. An incumbent Director of Nursing did not materialise and amidst her pronounced reservations, she accepted a redeployment to this Care Home as Director of Nursing for 60 residents.

The Worker was keen to explain the correct context and background where these Care Homes were regulated by external regulators. These Regulators set the targets for operational standards and integrity of Clinical Leadership.

The Worker began to have grave misgivings as she witnessed continuous staff departures at site and central level.

There was no visible corporate knowledge on the operational details of the Care Home and nobody from that sector visited the Care Home. Malfunction of doors followed malfunction of heating and Fire Compliance was outstanding. Lifts were condemned. Cleaners, Accounts staff and Receptionist resigned. Nursing Agencies withdrew due to nonpayment, Electronic Care planning records service was threatened to be withdrawn due to nonpayment. It was impossible to fill the Nursing roster.

Utilities were unpaid and threatened to withdraw service.

Emergency Concerns were raised centrally at Corporate Headquarters, but went unheeded and Creditors were paid piecemeal, if at all.

The Worker was misled by the former CEO when he promised prompt rectification of the issues, but “nothing happened “

She described being down to “the last 50 euro”. Her hands were tied in being torn between trying to govern the Care Home without any of the most basic staff or supports.

The Worker told the hearing that the standards and imperatives set down by the Regulatory Authority were not being addressed by the Company and she struggled to keep the care regime safe at the Care home populated by residents, whose families had begun to challenge the system.

The Worker described being left bereft of staff, supplies, maintenance, and any support.

By September 2023, she discussed the crisis with a trusted colleague and decided that it was in everyone’s best interests for

 “The scrum to be collapsed “

The Worker resigned her position due to the professional conflicts and in response to the huge personal cost to her health and family life.

In her own words, she wrote:

I never returned to (named Care Home) The HSE moved in within a couple of days of me leaving the building and the residents were gone, and the home was closed within a matter of weeks “

The experience of standing for so long in the line of fire and unaided, has left its mark on the Worker. She needed a period of restoration before she could seek new work. Her bonus and monies promised to a member of her family went unpaid. She wishes to separate herself from the pronounced deficits adopted by her Employer.

She is satisfied in her new work but has taken a pay cut.

The Worker is aware that the Company Director who made contact with the WRC has resumed the CEO position in March 2024. She was offered a Director of Nursing position at that time but declined. This home was subsequently closed down.

In response to my questions, the Worker confirmed that she had been unable to submit a grievance due to the complete disappearance of the HR Dept and non-replacement.

The Worker believes that the Company may well be in Liquidation, but she has not received any confirmation of this.

The CRO Website does not reflect this.

The Worker confirmed that the Pension benefits reflected in her contract of employment had not been commenced by the company.

She was unaware if the Company Safety Statement had details of A Major Incident Plan capable of being invoked to address the persistent crisis in operations.

The Worker confirmed that she had escalated her concerns directly to the Minister for Older Persons in September 2023. Her letter was acknowledged.

Finally, the Worker stated that.

 “She had never worked as hard, yet she had never been treated so badly by an Employer “

There was no appearance on or by the Employer in this case. I have not received any explanation or excuse for this nonappearance. I have not received a submission in response to the Dispute for investigation.

In light of my notification of a resumed hearing in this case to both parties, I must find the nonappearance of the Employer as unreasonable.

At this time, I must reflect on the Chair of the Labour Courts response to a nonappearance by a Government Body at a Labour Court hearing in Dept of Enterprise Trade and Employment and 31 External Adjudicators LCR 23031 earlier this year.

 On that occasion the Government Body set out reasons for non-attendance, in this case, I was just met with silence from the Employer.

For these reasons, the Government Department concerned declined to attend the hearing of the Court.

The Court recognises that any employer is, in our voluntarist industrial relations framework, free to participate or not participate in hearings of the Court convened to investigate a trade dispute. It is, however, an underpinning reality of the State’s institutional framework that the operation of our voluntarist system, enshrined as it is in the governing legislation since 1946, relies upon parties who value the orderly resolution of industrial relations trade disputes demonstrating respect for the institutions of the state by participating in the procedures employed by those institutions. Successive Governments and Ministers since 1946 have consistently re-iterated this reality, and in doing so have publicly endorsed the proposition that disputing parties should engage with the institutions of the State to assist in the resolution of trade disputes.

Against that background, it is a matter of grave concern that the DPENDR should instruct / advise a Government Department to decline an invitation from the Court to attend the hearing of the Court in this matter.

It need hardly be stated that, at minimum, the failure of the alleged employer in this alleged trade dispute to attend the hearing of the Court has deprived the Court of the opportunity to fully comprehend the position of that party in relation to the matters in dispute. This lack of engagement is particularly problematic when the statutory obligation resting upon the Court is to issue a Recommendation regardless of whether the alleged employer participates in the hearing or not.

For my part , I believe that it is a matter of grave concern that the Employer in this case should step forward to seek a brief adjournment by email ( not in person ) on 9 September 2024 only to go to ground after that , leaving the Dispute live and unresolved before the WRC as a Statutory Body .

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the Worker as none were forthcoming from the Employer in the case.

My role in this case in accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 is to investigate the Dispute and if I find merit to make a Recommendation to the Parties to resolve the dispute.

This approach is at its most effective in a live employment relationship rather than a now extinct working relationship.

It is also most effective when two parties’ views are heard concurrently.

I have not had the benefit of the Employers voice in this case. I have not had the benefit of being informed of the Company’s current trading status. This is all very disrespectful.

I make the following observations based on what I heard at hearing from the Worker and my perusal of the documents submitted alongside a reading of the contract of employment.

I listened carefully as the Worker spoke uninterrupted on the seismic change in her working career from late 2022 to 9 months later, leading to her resignation and delay in relaunching.

I formed the view early on that the Worker needed to be heard on the rapid deterioration in her working conditions which led to a complete abandonment by her Employer. This seemed necessary to process what occurred so that she could understand it and pick herself up for relaunch purposes.

I formed the vision of the Marie Celeste Ship from 1861, left on a reef and chronically deteriorated.

What I found difficult to reconcile in this case was the perennial presence of 45-60 elderly residents in the background of this story.

This was not a corporate disagreement in isolation. Instead, it seems to me that the backdrop was a business in rapid decline, with a massive exodus and no contingency. I have not had the benefit of Company Accounts / Balance Sheet, but I found the Workers undisputed account of the disintegration at the business was harrowing.

The Worker described a Calamitous workplace where assurances provided to her of tomorrow will be a brighter and better day, failed to materialise repeatedly.

The Worker was placed in a persistent firing line without supports and understands that she delayed her own departure a lot longer that she should have. I accept that she felt an obligation to the remaining staff and residents, but this was not reciprocated by the Employer. She kept her.

“Finger in the proverbial dam “

until it took a huge personal toll on her, where she was just exhausted from fear, confrontation from creditors and relatives and sense of abandonment.

I found zero regard or respect for the provisions of Section 11 and 12 of the Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 by this Employer.

I fully accept that the Labour Court insists on an exhaustion of local opportunities for resolution of disputes.

However, I am satisfied that all avenues of potential for resolution were removed from the Workers grasp when the HR Team disintegrated, and the corporate heads did not engage with her. She was alone in a trouble shooting capacity.

In considering the outline of this story, I was struck by the lack of any visible support for a Senior Health Care Manager from a Large Employer and limited Company charged with providing care to vulnerable older persons. I remain surprised that there is no visible platform for reflection for such a manager outside of the Statutory Body of the WRC. I found nothing meaningful by means of an exit interview.

The Trust and Confidence as hallmarks of an employment relationship were not visible to me.

I have found merit in this dispute.

I find that the Worker was treated unfairly, and this Employer behaved unreasonably as they were not present in the working relationship to any great extent in the final 9 months.

The Worker was placed in a constant firefighting role without any delegated authority to extinguish that fire.

These are not the actions of a reasonable employer.

I would have liked to have seen a more comprehensive dossier in this case in pursuing external assistance much sooner in this case. I can appreciate that these documents remain in the business and with the Regulatory body.

I am satisfied from considering the outline of relentless occurrences of avoidance by the Employer that the Worker found herself in an untenable position and was justified in resigning her position.

This case was not submitted as a claim for Constructive Dismissal, but it has overlaps in context and background.

This employment has now ended and will not be re constituted, therefore compensation for the unfair and unreasonable treatment extended by this Employer to the Worker is really all that is open to me at this point.

I recommend the Employer pay the following to the Worker as compensation for neglecting to fairly manage the working relationship from March 2023 to the moment of resignation in September 2023.

I also find that the delay experienced by the Worker in relaunching her employment must be attributed to the Employer.

There is also the question of unpaid pension contributions reflected in the contract of employment.

I recommend that the Employer pay the Worker.

1 Unpaid Bonus €10,000

2 Employers unfair and unreasonable behaviour from when the Worker agreed to revert to Director of Nursing which culminated in her unintended resignation. €10,000.

3 Compensation for loss of earnings until new work in November 2023 €10,000

4 Failure to make Employer contributions to the Workers Pension    €7,000

I recommend that the Employer pays this amount €37,000 within 4 weeks of this decision.

I also recommend that the Employer takes note of the clear provisions of Section 11 and 12 of the Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005 in any future business undertaking.

Decline in a Working Relationship at Senior Management Level.