Parties

A Care Assistant

A Care Management company

Representatives

Service Workers Alliance

Michael Kingsley BL instructed by J O Sullivan Solrs

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 - 00002147

20/01/2024

The Worker was employed as a Care Assistant from December 5th, 2023, to January 18th, 2024. He was involved in a car accident on January 12th, 2024, during a major frost and was unable due to anxiety to drive the company vehicle to clients homes afterwards. The Worker alleged he had to leave his employment due to the Employer not allowing more flexibility with his roster for him to attend to clients by travelling on bus routes or by bike.  The Worker sought compensation for the ending of his employment.

The Worker made a verbal submission. His Representative had only come on board the day previous to the Hearing. The Worker had a car accident on January 12th, 2024. He advised he was picked up after the accident and no one offered a medical check up.

The Worker advised that on January 15th at a meeting it focused on financial matters, and he was presented with a demand for 2000 Euros.

The Worker advised that at the start of January 16th he was struggling with anxiety and his roster and sought to have his roster adjusted to accommodate public transport and for him to cycle to clients. He advised he went to his Doctor with anxiety and panic attacks.  He was told at work that “no one put a gun to his head to come to Ireland”.  He advised he had difficulties with his mental health.  He advised it took one year for him to recover how to drive. He advised he was not happy with the conditions at work and felt isolated without a car. He advised he raised the issues with the Company. He was told his client list was fixed and his visit times could not be changed to suit bus times or cycling to homes.

The Worker was required to drive to clients as part of his job.

On the 4th January the Worker gave one months notice to the Company that this was not the type of work he wanted to do.

The Worker informed the company that he did not want to drive anymore after his accident.

The Workers proposal to visit clients by public transport and bicycle was not practical due to the distances involved across Galway county and the weather conditions.

The Worker was never dismissed.

The Worker did not attend for work after he was involved in a car accident

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. The Adjudicator advised at the Hearing his sole remit was an industrial relation one. The Worker sought compensation for the circumstances surrounding the end of his employment with the Employer.

The Worker asked for a Psychotherapist who was treating the Worker in Spain to contribute on his behalf. This contribution was not evidence and not given under Oath or Affirmation and following consultation with the Parties it was agreed the Psychotherapist could contribute to the Hearing on the basis she could also be questioned by the Employer. This was agreed to by all parties. The Psychotherapist stated she had consulted with the Worker online and that he suffered from anxiety and that he now suffers from stress and anxiety with driving. She understood he took up a new role in February 2024 which did not involve driving.

I have considered the situation solely from an Industrial relations viewpoint and while it was unfortunate that the Worker, who was new to Ireland and had arrived from Spain with little English, was involved in a car accident, the core issue is he is seeking compensation from the Employer for not facilitating him with a revised roster of clients to visit using public transport or going by bicycle.  I enquired at the Hearing into the location of the clients and their location varied considerably across Galway and the practicality of attending to these clients in the manner suggested by the Worker was not a practical method. It was reasonable for the Employer to deny this request. It was unfortunate the Worker had a crash, but this was not the fault of the Employer. I note the Employers position  that the Worker had already intimated to the Employer that the job was not for him prior to the date of the crash and that he would not be continuing in his employment.

Overall. I see no grounds from the submissions presented to me to recommend compensation for the Worker for the ending of his employment. I find in favour of the Employer.

Trade Dispute