Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Healthcare Worker

A Healthcare Employer

Representatives

  Self-Represented

Andrea Tancred 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 - 00004304

15/05/2025

The Worker began work February 2024 and the employment ended in November 2024 with the dismissal of the Worker. The Worker does not have service to allow for the matter to be heard under the Unfair Dismissals Act and this is being heard only under the Industrial Relations Act.

It is the Worker case that he has been dismissed without recourse to procedure and has not benefited from constitutional justice.

 The Employer refutes all such assertions and claims that the Worker benefitted from the implementation of correct procedures under natural and constitutional justice.

Employment:

·        Started on Feb 2024 as a care worker working with challenging clients.

Suspension:

·        In Aug 2024, suspended pending investigation into alleged abuse of a vulnerable person (29 & 31 July) a purported failure to provide safe, effective care and a breach of company policies (Privacy & Dignity, Code of Conduct).

Investigation & Outcome:

·        Investigation in Aug 2024 upheld allegations.

·        Disciplinary hearing Oct 2024; dismissed on 18 Nov 2024 for gross misconduct.

Worker Position:

·        Allegations are false and unsubstantiated.

·        Investigation and disciplinary process biased, unfair, predetermined.

·        Key evidence (CCTV, reports) not preserved; submissions ignored

Appeal:

·        Lodged Nov 2024 on grounds of care plan failures, conflicting evidence, lack of support, harsh sanction.

·        Appeal hearing Dec 2024; outcome Jan 2025 upheld dismissal.

Post-Dismissal Impact:

·        HSE reported concerns to Garda Vetting Bureau (Jan 2025), blocking vetting clearance.

·        Forced to withdraw from Social Care Practice course (Feb 2025) due to placement requirements.

Consequences:

·        The Worker has suffered severe damage to reputation, education, career, and personal life. The Worker denies all the allegations set against him and these have made his life, work and study intolerably difficult. In the hearing he told me of the effect on him and to his reputation. He considered his work at the unit as his duty to make the place home for others. The damage to his self-esteem and the personal hurt were evident to me.

The Employer set out the following:

Employment:

• Worker was employed as an ASW with the Employer and worked part-time hours at an hourly rate in a residential care centre.

Complaint Background:

• Allegations of serious incidents involving a resident were reported to Employee Relations and Safeguarding Teams and the worker was suspended on full pay pending investigation.

Investigation:

• Two investigators (HR representative and Person in Charge) were appointed.
• Worker was invited to an investigation meeting; allegations related to alleged physical and psychological abuse.
• Invitation included terms of reference, relevant policies, and documentary evidence (witness statements, medical and incident reports).
• Investigation meeting was held; Worker was advised of right to representation but attended alone.
• Investigation report finalised, recommended escalation to disciplinary hearing.
• Worker invited and attended disciplinary hearing; given opportunity to present case.
• Minutes of both investigation and disciplinary meetings were shared and agreed by Worker.

Investigation Outcome:

•  Employment terminated for gross misconduct; termination letter included right to appeal.
• Worker submitted appeal; two individuals appointed to hear appeal.
• Appeal hearing held; Worker presented appeal points.
• Appeal minutes shared and agreed; decision issued to uphold dismissal.
• Worker subsequently lodged complaint with WRC.

Respondent’s Position

• Respondent argues the complaint relates to unfair dismissal under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, not the Industrial Relations Act 1969.
• Dismissal is acknowledged but claimed to be substantively and procedurally fair, citing Section 6(4)(b) of the Act (dismissal due to employee conduct).
• Respondent states the Worker’s actions amounted to gross misconduct, as defined in the disciplinary policy (policy list is not exhaustive).
• Zero-tolerance policy applies to physical and psychological abuse; staff must uphold values of safe, effective care with dignity and respect.
• Worker’s explanations were deemed insufficient to mitigate the seriousness of the alleged actions.
• Disciplinary officers relied on consistent witness evidence and medical evidence (bruising), which contradicted the Worker’s account.
• Sanction of dismissal considered justified given the gravity and implications of the conduct.

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

I have explained the limitations of a dispute referred under S13 of the Industrial Relations Act to the Complainant. It was important that he understood my role was to make a recommendation rather than a decision and any recommendation was not, in any way, binding on the parties.

I addressed this matter similarly to the Employer to ascertain if there was anything that could be recommended and their own openness to it, given they had not exercised their right to object to the hearing. It appeared from the discussions that the deadline for objecting may have slipped by them, without notice.

I can find no fault with the process afforded to the Worker and acknowledge the weight of responsibility that applies to an employer in such a vulnerable sector that it is required to follow the steps that it has in line with natural justice. I would also note that the process followed was quite robust and that the law would not demand that such procedures be perfect, in any event.

The matter of the Worker referring to the Unfair Dismissal Act, and to be clear the Worker in this case does not, by lack of service, have access to that Act and has offered no circumstances to demonstrate he should have recourse to the exceptions within.  I am only empowered to make a recommendation as how I see the dispute between the parties might be resolved.

It is clear to me that the matter is beyond resolution between the parties. It is now subject to a Garda investigation over which I have no power to alter, nor does the employer.

The Worker has put together a very well made out submission to me and argued his case well and I am sympathetic to his plight; however, I can offer no relief under the Industrial Relations Act that would resolve the matter, and it is appropriate that the Garda investigation runs its course.