Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) - RECENT Decisions & judgements
Award of €40,000 for Childcare Manager Constructively Dismissed
Adjudication Decision Reference: UD1250/2014 – An Employee vs a Child Care Centre
Grounds / Issues – Unfair Dismissal
The Claimant commenced employment as a Childcare Assistant with a child care centre in October 1996. She was appointed Manager of the centre in April 2011. From September 2013 there was a significant change in the Claimant’s role and she worked mainly in the office in an administrative role and managing up to eight staff.
On 24th January 2014 MM and another lady came to the centre and summoned her to a meeting. Statements from three members of staff were produced, alleging that the Claimant had mishandled children. At the end of the meeting the Claimant was suspended on pay pending the outcome of an investigation. Following the meeting of 24th January, the Respondent interviewed the five other Employees about the Claimant and took statements from them. One of the Employees advised the Claimant that she was not informed that the discussion was to constitute a statement about the Claimant.
By way of letter of 4th February 2014 the Claimant was invited to a disciplinary hearing to answer allegations of:
The Claimant appealed the decision. The Appeals Officer found that the sanction of dismissal was too severe and recommended that it be reduced to a final written warning together with a period of retraining and performance management. The Respondent communicated the decision to the Claimant on 2nd July 2014 without any reference as to when it would be implemented.
Following no further contact, the Claimant, via her solicitor, wrote to the Respondent later that month raising a number of concerns including the manner in which the investigation process was undertaken, the stopping of her sick pay during a period of significant stress, and a loss in trust and confidence in her employer. The Respondent wrote to the Claimant, to advise that the Claimant was being re-instated to her position as Centre Manager, which would entail a period of retraining and formal performance management. Due to a lack of faith and confidence in the Respondent and failure to respond to a number of earlier questions raised, the Claimant decided that she could not resume her employment with the Respondent.
In awarding a sum of €40,000, the Court found, given the circumstances, it was reasonable for the Claimant to have lost faith and confidence in her employer and to terminate her employment with the Respondent.
In making its determination the Adjudicator accepted the view of the Claimant that her position was completely undermined following the failure of MD to address the concerns raised following her successful appeal. Given the circumstances, it was found that the Respondent had sufficiently met the ‘burden of proof’ to resign her employment and succeed in her claim, given the conduct of her employer. The failure of the Respondent to attend the hearing and defend the claims made, which is not advised, did not help the Respondent’s case.
€4,000 Compensation following procedural concerns arising from internal Investigation
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00000430 – An Employee vs an Employer
Grounds / Issues – Internal Investigation / Disciplinary Sanction
The Claimant was alleged not to have had had attended four incidents, for which he had claimed on-call payments & travel and was suspended in December 2014. In April 2015, an investigator found a “distinct lack of evidence” to support the allegations made. Despite the conclusions arrived at, the Claimant was invited to attend a disciplinary hearing, on the basis of separate allegations, following which he was issued with a final written warning and suspension from the on-call roster on the basis of the allegations. An appeal was unsuccessful.
In reply, the Respondent submitted that a number of matters arose during the initial investigation process, was subsequently put to the Complainant at a disciplinary hearing, and subsequently found to merit a final written warning and suspension from the on-call rota for a period of three months.
In closing the Adjudication Officer complimented the investigator for a thorough and comprehensive report and agreed with the Complainant that the report should have ended the matter. In regard to the view that matters arose during the investigation process itself, the Adjudicator was of the view that these matters should have been addressed separately and with extreme ‘caution’. An award of €4,000 along with a removal of the disciplinary sanctions originally issued again the Complainant was determined.
In this instance, unfortunately, the ‘residual matters’ which were identified were not detailed or expanded upon for the benefit of the reader. The Adjudicator Officer did not also expand on how the Employer could have addressed the matters separately in a more appropriate manner. Dependent on the specific matters concerned, two options may have presented themselves 1) the Investigator to have addressed the separate concerns which arose within his report or 2) a separate investigation to have commenced as it related to the matters which arose.
Adjudication Decision Reference: UD1250/2014 – An Employee vs a Child Care Centre
Grounds / Issues – Unfair Dismissal
The Claimant commenced employment as a Childcare Assistant with a child care centre in October 1996. She was appointed Manager of the centre in April 2011. From September 2013 there was a significant change in the Claimant’s role and she worked mainly in the office in an administrative role and managing up to eight staff.
On 24th January 2014 MM and another lady came to the centre and summoned her to a meeting. Statements from three members of staff were produced, alleging that the Claimant had mishandled children. At the end of the meeting the Claimant was suspended on pay pending the outcome of an investigation. Following the meeting of 24th January, the Respondent interviewed the five other Employees about the Claimant and took statements from them. One of the Employees advised the Claimant that she was not informed that the discussion was to constitute a statement about the Claimant.
By way of letter of 4th February 2014 the Claimant was invited to a disciplinary hearing to answer allegations of:
- Rough and potentially aggressive handling of children
- Shouting and behaviour towards children contrary to her role as a child care worker
- Undue attention and care paid to children and potentially leaving children in her care exposed to danger
- Dereliction of her duties as manager.
The Claimant appealed the decision. The Appeals Officer found that the sanction of dismissal was too severe and recommended that it be reduced to a final written warning together with a period of retraining and performance management. The Respondent communicated the decision to the Claimant on 2nd July 2014 without any reference as to when it would be implemented.
Following no further contact, the Claimant, via her solicitor, wrote to the Respondent later that month raising a number of concerns including the manner in which the investigation process was undertaken, the stopping of her sick pay during a period of significant stress, and a loss in trust and confidence in her employer. The Respondent wrote to the Claimant, to advise that the Claimant was being re-instated to her position as Centre Manager, which would entail a period of retraining and formal performance management. Due to a lack of faith and confidence in the Respondent and failure to respond to a number of earlier questions raised, the Claimant decided that she could not resume her employment with the Respondent.
In awarding a sum of €40,000, the Court found, given the circumstances, it was reasonable for the Claimant to have lost faith and confidence in her employer and to terminate her employment with the Respondent.
In making its determination the Adjudicator accepted the view of the Claimant that her position was completely undermined following the failure of MD to address the concerns raised following her successful appeal. Given the circumstances, it was found that the Respondent had sufficiently met the ‘burden of proof’ to resign her employment and succeed in her claim, given the conduct of her employer. The failure of the Respondent to attend the hearing and defend the claims made, which is not advised, did not help the Respondent’s case.
€4,000 Compensation following procedural concerns arising from internal Investigation
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00000430 – An Employee vs an Employer
Grounds / Issues – Internal Investigation / Disciplinary Sanction
The Claimant was alleged not to have had had attended four incidents, for which he had claimed on-call payments & travel and was suspended in December 2014. In April 2015, an investigator found a “distinct lack of evidence” to support the allegations made. Despite the conclusions arrived at, the Claimant was invited to attend a disciplinary hearing, on the basis of separate allegations, following which he was issued with a final written warning and suspension from the on-call roster on the basis of the allegations. An appeal was unsuccessful.
In reply, the Respondent submitted that a number of matters arose during the initial investigation process, was subsequently put to the Complainant at a disciplinary hearing, and subsequently found to merit a final written warning and suspension from the on-call rota for a period of three months.
In closing the Adjudication Officer complimented the investigator for a thorough and comprehensive report and agreed with the Complainant that the report should have ended the matter. In regard to the view that matters arose during the investigation process itself, the Adjudicator was of the view that these matters should have been addressed separately and with extreme ‘caution’. An award of €4,000 along with a removal of the disciplinary sanctions originally issued again the Complainant was determined.
In this instance, unfortunately, the ‘residual matters’ which were identified were not detailed or expanded upon for the benefit of the reader. The Adjudicator Officer did not also expand on how the Employer could have addressed the matters separately in a more appropriate manner. Dependent on the specific matters concerned, two options may have presented themselves 1) the Investigator to have addressed the separate concerns which arose within his report or 2) a separate investigation to have commenced as it related to the matters which arose.
Note on WRC:
The establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission on the 1st October 2015 is the most radical restructuring of employment legislation over the last 30 years. Organisations are encouraged to understand all facets of the WRC, how it now operates and what to expect when required to defend a claim at the third parties.
The establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission has resulted in the combined functions of the Labour Relations Commission, Rights Commissioner Service, the Equality Tribunal, the Employment Appeals Tribunal and the National Employment Rights Authority (NERA).
In addition to this the Labour Court has been reconfigured in order to hear appeals.
The strategic aims of the new Workplace Relations Commission include an independent, effective and impartial workplace relations service, a more workable means of redress within a reasonable timeframe and an overall reduction in costs. The new Workplace Relations Commission is also anticipated to be more centralised, in terms of maintaining a database of case information, the end result bring a better service for both Employers and Employees and a much more streamlined, simplified process.
The establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission on the 1st October 2015 is the most radical restructuring of employment legislation over the last 30 years. Organisations are encouraged to understand all facets of the WRC, how it now operates and what to expect when required to defend a claim at the third parties.
The establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission has resulted in the combined functions of the Labour Relations Commission, Rights Commissioner Service, the Equality Tribunal, the Employment Appeals Tribunal and the National Employment Rights Authority (NERA).
In addition to this the Labour Court has been reconfigured in order to hear appeals.
The strategic aims of the new Workplace Relations Commission include an independent, effective and impartial workplace relations service, a more workable means of redress within a reasonable timeframe and an overall reduction in costs. The new Workplace Relations Commission is also anticipated to be more centralised, in terms of maintaining a database of case information, the end result bring a better service for both Employers and Employees and a much more streamlined, simplified process.
Adare Human Resource Management is one of Ireland’s leading Employment Law and Human Resource Management Consultancies. Our HR & Employment Law Support Services include:
www.adarehrm.ie
- Advice on all Employment Law, Industrial Relations and HR queries or issues
- Review, Development and Implementation of Contracts of Employment and Employee Policies and Procedures
- Management and Employee Training - Dignity at Work, Anti-Harassment and Sexual Harassment, Conducting Disciplinary Meetings
- Investigations - independent investigations on behalf of Organisations in line with the relevant legislation and codes of practice
- Organisational Management or Change Management Initiatives – including review / development of Performance Appraisal / Management Systems and Organisational Development
www.adarehrm.ie
