Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Health Service Provider

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 - 00003578

18/12/2024

The employer received a complaint on service provided to clients by the worker. The complaint was investigated under the policy and it was decided that a temporary re-deployment should take place. The worker appealed that certain aspects of the investigation did not adhere to the agreed procedures. He said he was not treated fairly by his employer throughout the year long process.

The worker said during his years of service he had not been the subject of any previous complaints. He said that the investigation process was one sided and he was treated badly though out the process. He said he was re-assigned in March 2025 to a regular post and that he was getting on with his work.

The employer representative outlined the procedures that were followed in their detailed and comprehensive submission. Although the initial investigation failed to provide sufficient time and detail for the worker to respond, when the investigation re-convened, it addressed matters appropriately.

It was clarified that a separate matter of incorrect submission of doctors certs was added to the reconvened disciplinary meeting.

It was submitted that the sanction of a temporary re-deployment, and then return to a regular post became complicated due to the lack of a vacancy and the occupational health advice.

The employer representative confirmed that no oral warning issued at the time, and the worker’s record is clear. It was accepted that the worker was performing well in his current role.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented in advance and at the hearing itself.

Although the complaint was investigated in a speedy manner, on appeal, it was found that the worker may not have had adequate time to interpret and understand and thus respond at the initial investigation. This entailed a re-convened process to ensure the worker was afforded a fair process. Although the issue of sick certs arose subsequently in 2024, it was not appropriate to merge this issue with the original complaint.

I am satisfied that the worker was inconvenienced and distressed and this was exacerbated by the resumed investigation and introduction of the new doctors cert issue. His co-operation with the temporary redeployments should have entailed a return to a regular post from an earlier stage.

In terms of redress, the only appropriate remedy is compensation, particularly as all issues are now resolved. When breaches of procedure occur, each case will have its own particular consequences for those concerned.

On the facts of this case, I recommend that the employer make a compensation award to the worker of €2,000.00, in full and final settlement of the dispute.   

Complaint investigation