Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Care Assistant

A Nursing Home

Representatives

  Self-Represented

 Self-Represented

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 - 00003616

06/01/2025

The Worker had been a Care Assistant with the Employer. She worked 24 hours per week and was paid €624 fortnightly. She claims that she was locked into an office by the principals of the nursing home who confronted her about an alleged incident with a resident. She believes the actions of the Employer were unwarranted and caused her great distress.

The Employer denies holding the Worker in a locked room and holds they were obliged to investigate a complaint by a resident.

In written submission prior to the hearing the Employer question my jurisdiction to investigate the claim. However, I find that this dispute, with regard to alleged unfair treatment during a workplace investigation, is a workplace matter that is not explicitly excluded for investigation under section 13 of the Workplace Relations Act 1969.

The Worker submits that on 29 November 2024 she was called into the office about an alleged verbal incident with a resident. Present in the office were the resident and the two joint owners of the nursing home. She became very distressed at the way the meeting was to proceed as she believed this was not the proper way to investigate any matter and got up to leave. She accepted that she had difficulties in her relationship with the resident who was central to the incident but claimed that other residents also had difficulties with this resident. She alleged that one of the owners, Mr A, blocked the door which was locked by keypad and button, and she became very distressed. Eventually, Mr A let her out. She accepted she shouted to other staff when she exited, informing them of what had transpired. She argues that the approach of management was unprofessional, and the incident had such a negative effect on her that she never returned to work even though she had been employed there since 2006.

The Employer submits that a resident came to Mr B, a joint owner of the nursing home, and said that the Worker was shouting at her. Mr B invited the Worker to attend a meeting at an office with the other joint owner. The resident who made the complaint was  in attendance. Mr B said that the door was not locked but closed. Mr A, who was in attendance at the hearing admitted that he got up and stood at the door, but it was only for about 30 seconds when the Worker would not listen to the complaint and made for the door. He said he was trying to calm her down because she was shouting. Mr A said that when she had exited, she continued to shout in the earshot of staff and other residents.

The Employer submits that they made attempts at resolving the situation when they agreed a meeting at the Worker’s request on 6 December 2024, but the meeting ended in disarray because the Worker kept interrupting and walked out without giving the Employer the opportunity to address the problem. The Employer submits it treated the Worker with respect always and cited a time when it paid the Worker her full wages when she was recovering from an accident. The Employer also contends that the Worker did not make an official grievance of her issue but accepts it had no record of supplying the Worker with a copy of a Grievance/Disciplinary procedure nor of a Bullying /Harassment policy.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. It is well established as best practice that where serious allegations are made against employees—as was the case here, namely an allegation of shouting at a resident in a nursing home—a proper investigation must take place, with the employee informed in advance of the allegation in writing, thereby affording her a fair opportunity to respond. This principle is long established and is specifically underpinned by S.I. 146 of 2000 (Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures). The Code advises that employees must be informed of allegations in advance, given an opportunity to respond, and be allowed to have representation.

None of these procedures were followed by the Respondent, where the employee was ushered into an office to be confronted by management and, quite extraordinarily, by the resident who had alleged that the Complainant had shouted at her. I am satisfied that there was an attempt by Mr B to prevent the Worker from leaving the meeting—albeit for approximately 30 seconds—despite her being entitled to do so under the circumstances. I am further satisfied that no reasonable employer would have attempted to investigate an incident or conduct themselves in the manner described. I therefore uphold the Worker’s claim that she was treated unfairly and unprofessionally by the Manager.

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. S.I. 146 of 2000.