Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

 A Project Worker

A Social Justice Charity

Representatives

Hannah Rowe

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

IR - SC - 00003640

10/01/2025

This hearing was conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road, Dublin. In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) the hearing was conducted in recognition of the fact that all formal hearings should be conducted fairly. The hearing was not conducted in public as it concerned a dispute brought under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969.

Industrial Relations disputes are primarily heard on the basis of factual submissions provided by the respective parties. Relevant parties might be invited to give an oral recollection of events, facts and matters within their knowledge. Testimony may be subject to rebuttal by witnesses or other relevant contradicting evidence provided by the other side.

The specific details of the dispute are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 10th of January 2025.

The Complainant was not represented and made his own case. The complainant gave an oral account of the facts which gave rise to this workplace dispute. I was provided with supplemental documentary evidence in support of the Complainant’s case. Much of this was received on the 23rd of May 2025. No objection was raised to any of the materials relied upon by the Complainant in making his case. The evidence adduced by the Complainant was challenged as appropriate by the Respondent/by the Respondent’s Representative.

The Complainant set out his dispute as follows (edited by Adjudicator so as to preserve anonymity):

I have been employed by Respondent since May 2005. My job title is Project Worker for the J Program. I work with Service Users (Clients) aged 8 – 18 years of age both male and female. My job description is to work with individual service users on a one-to-one basis, involve them in group work and occasionally offer them respite for 1-3 days. My hours are flexible, and I also work weekends and holidays. I have 4 fulltime service users, and I try to  see each of  them at least once per week one to one, for up to 6+ hours per week. I am required to be up to date with all Child Protection Guidelines and training. Respondent has a number of policies and procedures that I have to abide by on a daily basis when working with service users and their families.

               On Thursday the 29th of June 2023 while travelling to meet with a service user I received a call from my Project manager KP he informed me that a complaint has been made about me concerning a service user. He also informed me that it was not one of my service users, KPl did not know the details of the complaint except that it alleges I hit him. Because of the serious nature of the allegation, he has been told to place me on immediate precautionary suspension (Full Pay) he does not know anything regarding the complaint. He told me not to meet with my service users or have any contact with them.              

               I was contacted by the Safeguarding Manager VT by telephone on the 30/06/2023 and the 03/07/2023, I made notes of the calls and forwarded them to my work email. On the 3rd of July VT refused to give me details of the complaint and used Child Protection to justify the decision for suspension and not telling what the allegation was. At this stage he still had not told me who the service user is. I deduced that it was the middle son of my neighbour with whom I had words with on the evening of the 28thof of June in the presence of his mother. I knew that I had not made any close or physical contact with the child. The SGM said that under Respondent Policies I had to be suspended until further investigation was made. As a person who works with young people you are always aware that a complaint regardless of if it is true/false could be made, so you have to be aware of the policies you work under. With truly little information at my disposal, I had to accept the SGM’s word that Respondent/ Employer would follow the guidelines and procedures, and I will be exonerated .

From Thursday the 29th of June the only contact I had with upper management was the 2 phone calls, several emails and hardcopy of my suspension ( (which I had to request)I received updated Emails regarding the suspension being ongoing. My suspension continued through July, August and into the last weeks of September, in that period no one with knowledge of my suspension in Respondent workplace made any effort to keep me updated/informed. Outside of protocol I received an invitation to meet with the al Social Worker with a relevant Government state Agency to talk about the complaint. We met on the 28th of September ’23 and on the 3rd of October the PSO contacted me by phone and informed me that they found no cause for concern and deemed the allegation unfounded. From the 3rd of October until the 17th of November my Employer refused to recognise the State Agency’s outcome. After intervention by my solicitor with the Respondent HR Director CJ I returned to work on the 14th of December.

I was still unaware of the details of the allegation made against me and received no acknowledgement from the Respondent that the allegation was false and that I had not assaulted anyone. And I was still denied any explanations both written or verbal of how the suspension was handled and why I was never interviewed by anyone or asked for my side of the story.

From the 14th of December onwards I was officially back to work, unfortunately after meeting with my manager II was made aware that the HR and SGP managers wanted to meet with me “looking for my side of the suspension” On advice from my Solicitor  I agreed in principal to meet, however I made the following  requests  “ Written Invitation to meeting”  “Copy of Agenda”  and “ A written copy of the allegation  against me” these requests were made and were ignored. They went ahead and set the meeting for 12 noon on the 08/01/2024, Eventually after the requests were not complied with I reached the decision that I was sick of the treatment I was receiving from management. I submitted my Grievance to the COO on the 7th of January 2024.

From the 7th of January up to the end of December 2024:

I had one informal meeting with the then CEO

I had a Formal Grievance meeting on the 13/06/2024

On the 09/08/2024 I received the Outcome of my Grievance.

On the 27/08/2024 I submitted an appeal. I was required to submit reasons for my appeal.

On the 03/10/2024 I had the Grievance Appeal meeting.

On the 22nd of November I received the outcomes of the appeal. The tone of the appeal meeting was rather good, the panel listened and understood more readily than the previous panel the points I was putting to them. I also provided them with my expectations of an outcome. I also offered mediation again. I walked away with a slim hope of a positive outcome. However, as the outcome was delayed as I expected the panel decided to accept the decision of the Grievance Panel. My offer of mediation to resolve this grievance was countered by the SLT offering me mediation to return to work.

This was the last part of the internal grievance process. Both panels had agreed on all the points that I had outlined, the failure of management to correctly implement their own Policies and Procedures, and that set out in the Children’s Act 2014.

I have carefully gone over the information I received after 2 FOI requests and the minutes and statements made by those involved in my suspension. This information showed that Respondent staff up to and including the CEO failed to follow the Data Management Policy ( which is mandatory for all Staff ) and they did not make notes of the original disclosure phone call nor were any records made of the meetings/decisions made on the 29th of June. I was suspended within 3 hours of the disclosure, and the Child Protection referral was sent before the Preliminary Screening Report was created on the 30th of June. The Guideline set out in the Children’s Act 2014 allows up to 3 days before a written report needs to be submitted to a State Agency and on receipt the state agency is mandated as the sole investigative authority, if it is referred to the Gardai then they are mandated to investigate and report their findings back to the State Agency.

It took almost 12 months for me to gather this information, and I also was able to show omissions and discrepancies between the two reports.

On the 12/12/2024 I asked for a meeting with the newly promoted to CEO The Appeal had been held and the outcome given. I had already told the appeal panel that I would be considering going to the WRC. I wanted the meeting so I could hear in person from the new CEO that from an Organisational perspective the Respondent regards my grievance as closed. The right decision was made to suspend me pending a State Agency investigation. Their policy implementation was flawed with  “Lesson’s Learned,” and a “Root and Branch overhaul” will be carried out to ensure this does not happen again. I was described as a  valued member of staff and can return when he is able. Go back to work and forget the last 18 months. We offer you mediation so you can find a way back to work, we will not enter any mediation regarding financial settlement.

 Following on from that meeting I took time over the Christmas Holidays and re-affirmed my  conclusion that I can no longer work for the Respondent, I have lost all my faith in a company I have worked in almost 20 years. Throughout the last 18months the Respondent has not shown to me an iota of Trust, Honesty, or Transparency. The Respondent has offered me nothing in regards of the pain and suffering, mental health, or  financial loss this has cost both me and my family.

As I was and still am the innocent party in this whole debacle I decided to make a submission to the WRC Workplace Relations Commission. I am basing this submission on the Code of Practice S.I. 146/2000

 Having gone through and exhausted the internal grievance process I have copies of approved minutes of meetings I participated in that show proof that Respondent has failed to implement and has ignored sections of its own internal Policies and Procedures, and although the words features throughout several of their Policies they continue to deny Natural Justice to a longtime member of staff.

I am currently out of work on sick Leave and have been since early March 2024. My doctor has signed me off with Work Related Stress. I am waiting for an appointment to see a psychiatrist regarding this. Due to other unrelated health issues, I had already used up my Sick Leave with th4e Respondent and I have been receiving weekly Sick Benefits payments from the start. I have had to use my savings to make up the shortfall in my mortgage and other monthly payments.

Where it also became necessary, I explained how the Adjudication process operated with particular emphasis on the burden of proof which had to be attained by the Complainant in the first instance.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute. 

The Respondent was represented by the business representative group known as IBEC. The Respondent provided me with a written submissions dated 5th of June 2025. This was accompanied by a booklet of documents. I have additionally had the benefit pf some input from a number of witnesses who attended the hearings. These included HR, the head of safeguarding and a Director. No objection was raised in connection with any of the documentary evidence relied upon by the Respondent in the course of making its case.

The Respondent has conceded as per it’s own internal grievance process outcome that it made mistakes.

On the second day the Respondent read a statement into evidence. I have edited same to achieve anonymity, but the statement basically read as follows:

The Company received an allegation that the worker was involved in an assault of a

physical nature. Based on this allegation and in line with the safeguarding policy, the

worker was placed on paid suspension pending an investigation.

The Company had to notify a State Agency as the alleged incident involved a minor. As per their

policy, they could not divulge the details as it may have impacted the State Agency investigation

(pg 53 of policy point 1.6). The Company had no control over the duration of the State Agency

investigation. Once confirmation was received, the Worker was invited back to work.

The worker lodged a grievance relating to the

- Disciplinary action resulting in paid suspension

- Return to work date

- Bullying and harassment.

The Company met with the worker informally to discuss his grievance. It then

progressed to the formal stage.

The Company investigated this in line with the policy and S.I.146/2000. The worker was

given a fair hearing and afforded the right to representation. The panel partially upheld

the workers grievance, and he was afforded the right to appeal.

He availed of his right to appeal, and a fair and thorough appeal process took place. The

appeal was partially upheld, and a list of recommendations was included. The

Company are currently working on implementing these recommendations. As a result

of the recommendations, the safeguarding procedure has since been updated and

includes a new case management system.

The Company also contacted the worker on 26th June to have a discussion about a

return to work, to which he did not respond. His line manager has also been engaging in

the absence review process with the worker, the first meeting took place on 3rd July and

the second meeting took place on 26th September during which he indicated that he did

not need any supports and that he does not anticipate a return to work

It is the Company’s position that they provided the worker with a full and fair

examination of his grievance as per their policy and in line with S.I146/2000

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute.

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

At the outset it is worth noting what the Respondent body does, and I am guided by the submission made by the Respondent wherein it describes itself as a:

“..a social justice charity that was established in 1978 ….and expanded to the Republic of Ireland in 2003. It is a community and voluntary organisation, whose innovative services are in trauma awareness. It is commissioned by public sector bodies and government departments from across the island of Ireland and delivers services to support, house and engage adults, young people, families and children who are either: Facing family breakdown; Displaced from their country of origin; Living with an offending past; Dealing with alcohol and drug issues; Street homeless or facing homelessness; Living with the impact of suicide; Dealing with mental health issues; Engaging in alternative education and employability supports; Mentoring for Children Looked After; Members of the Traveller Community. The Company has 80 individual projects in Ireland, positioned in more than 40 locations, reaching out across 27 counties.”

The Complainant commenced employment with the Company on 21 May 2007. He has been employed full time as a Project Worker and brings experience and empathy to this sensitive position.

It is an irrefutable fact that on 28 June 2023, the Company/Employer received a safeguarding allegation about the Complainant from a third party. At the time the Complainant had no idea what this complaint was, but accepted that in line with the Company’s Safeguarding procedures and policies and the Joint National Protocol, that a Worker would be immediately placed on precautionary suspension, on full pay. This is intended to be a a without prejudice step.

I believe that the Complainant was aware that the complaint made might involve an investigation by a State Authority and/or the Gardai. That said, the Complainant did not know the nature and extent of any allegation made and did not know where it might have placed on a complaint spectrum.

Herein lay the problem. Whilst understandably implementing its own policies and procedures, the Respondent seemingly failed to keep the Complainant in the loop. I accept that there was not no contact whatsoever, but equally I recognise that the Complainant was inevitably left to stew in his own frustration and vexation with no clear idea of when this situation might end.

Of course, part of the problem lay with the State Body who had taken it upon themselves (correctly in the circumstances), to conduct an investigation and then been incredibly slow about carrying out the investigation and making any findings known.

Eventually, the Complainant brought a Grievance against his Employer for their handling of this process. It should be noted that the Complainant was coming from a position of knowing he had done nothing wrong – and this fact was eventually borne out. I formed the view on the first day of evidence that the Complainant was very aggrieved at what he perceived to be the lack of loyalty on the part of his Employer. He felt his years of excellent service should have meant that his Employer did more for him in terms of pushing this matter along.

However, I have to also look at this from the Employer’s perspective, and I have to accept that against a backdrop of dealing with the most vulnerable and marginalised people in our society this Employer had to step back and let the approved State Agency do it’s work -however frustratingly slow that process turned out to be.

I accept that the Complainant’s Grievance was dealt with right up to and including the Appeal stage. It is worth noting that the Respondent has agreed with the findings of that process and has implemented recommendations made around the management of the suspension process on foot of a complaint made. For example, the Employer agrees that there should be an appointed contact point person in the workplace to keep the suspended party up to date on all developments.

Eventually the state agency confirmed that its investigation was complete. The State agency confirmed additionally that it had no concerns about the Employee – the Complainant. In the circumstances the Complainant was invited to engage in a back to work process. This happened towards the end of 2023 and into January of 2024. However, the sting in the tail lay in the fact that the Employer now wanted to conduct a separate and in-house internal investigation following the same safeguarding allegation. This, despite the fact that the same allegation had gained no traction with the State Agency nor the Gardai.

The company has suggested that the investigation is not intended to be punitive and instead seeks to understand if the Employer needs to provide ongoing supports to the Complainant.

I think that it is largely in consequence of this that the Employee herein has lost trust and faith in the Employer. Having experienced the excruciation of not knowing what his future held in consequence of an unknown complaint made about him, the Complainant having been exonerated was facing a re-run of the complaint with all the same uncertainties attaching.

In the circumstances, the Complainant has not returned to the workplace and his skill and experience in a particularly acute area of public service, is lost.

In the course of the second day of hearing before me the Respondent conceded that it could have handled certain aspects of this ongoing series of events better.

By way of an attempt to ameliorate the perceived wrongs, the Employer has agreed that it will now draw a line in the sand. The Employer will not (subject to certain condition) proceed with a further investigation into the complaint made back in June of 2023.

I recommend that the Complainant give a written account of the events of June 28th 2023 which gave rise to a complaint having been made. Per discussion had, this must be a factual account of the incident and just the incident.

I recommend that the Complainant and Respondent can liaise as to the final written account. That is, that the Respondent may raise legitimate questions within the parameter of the account provided by the Complainant. The Complainant may provide answers. Both parties must sign off on the narrative provided.

I recommend that this written account can be placed on the Complainant’s file in the unlikely event that anything arises in the future which might need such an account.

Thereafter I recommend that the Respondent confirm in writing that it is not now and will not in the future further investigate this matter and a proposed formal workplace investigation is taken off the table.

I am hopeful; that the Complainant might see a way to return to the workplace after this process which should take no longer than four weeks.