Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Care Assistant

A Care Provider

Representatives

Vivian Cullen, SIPTU

Peter Gilfedder, 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 - 00003549

12/12/2024

The employer provides care to people with intellectual disabilities.  This is done in residential and community settings in Dublin, Kildare and Meath.  In 1995, the worker joined the organisation as a care assistant on a contract to provide holiday relief.  She was offered a permanent contract in March 1999.  She currently works 39 hours a week on night duty.  She is rostered for seven nights on and seven nights off.  She reports to the person in charge, who works on the day shift. 

The issues which are the subject of this dispute commenced around October 2022 when a new social care worker was assigned on the day shift in the same house as the worker.  The worker feels that her interaction with this colleague has impacted on her well-being at work and she feels disrespected and treated in a demeaning manner by him.  She said that, when she arrived for the night shift, she wasn’t given proper handovers regarding the service users in her house and that this new social care worker instructed her to read the notes.  She said that her name is not used on handover notes and that they are addressed to “night staff.”

In November 2022, following an incident during which the colleague in question dismissed the worker’s description of what happened to a service user that had fallen, the worker agreed to meet the colleague to resolve the issues between them.  The worker explained to the colleague the effect his behaviour was having on her and he agreed to address his behaviour.

In January 2023, the worker complained to the colleague about Covid-contaminated laundry that wasn’t washed on the day shift which she dealt with on the night shift.  She said that her colleague responded, “aren’t you a great staff.”  The worker was extremely upset at this dismissive response and she phoned her line manager, the person in charge, who advised her to go to the HR department.  The worker sent an email to the programme manager and requested a move out of the house where she worked.  She also informed her line manager that she wanted a move.

Every morning at the end of her night shift, the worker gives a morning handover to the staff on the day shift.  When she arrived to start her shift in the evening, she said that the colleague that she complained about rarely gave her any information.  She said that she was not informed about audits that take place and she didn’t get information about service users’ appointments.  She said that her only source of information was the two staff nurses and a part-time person that she sees at the weekends.  She said that she spoke to her line manager about this but that nothing was done.

Renovations on the house where the worker was assigned commenced in May 2023.  The worker said that she wasn’t asked for suggestions about the changes and she wasn’t included in the decision-making process.  She couldn’t explain what was going on to the service users, because she had no information.  She said that she wasn’t told which service users were moving out during the renovations and she wasn’t told where the ones that were moving were going to.  She said that the weekend staff told her what was happening, but that her line manager or his deputy never communicated with her about the move.

In her submission, the worker referred to a safeguarding issue that arose in the house where she worked.  She said that she wasn’t included in the discussions about how to communicate with the family of the affected service user.  Some of her colleagues were given her line manager’s personal phone number and advised to phone him if an issue arose when he wasn’t at work.  The worker said that she and some of her colleagues were not given his phone number.  The worker said that when this was brought to his attention, they were provided with information that had not been updated, and they couldn’t answer the service user’s questions, which caused anxiety for them.

At a supervision meeting with her manager, the worker said that she emphasised that night staff are full members of staff, and not agency staff.  She said that she told him that she and her colleagues on the night shift feel constantly excluded.

The worker said that recent staff meetings were held when she is rostered off work, so she has been excluded.  She said that the result of this exclusion is that the needs of the service users are not fully met.

Regarding supervision, the worker said that she feels very unsafe in the house where she works and that she feels that the environment is hostile.  Issues she has raised in supervision meetings have not been addressed.  Although she said that she has made efforts to raise issues with her manager and with the programme manager, nothing has improved.  She feels that her manager is supportive of the staff member who joined around October 2022 and, for this reason, she said that she doesn’t feel safe during one-to-one supervision and she wants a witness to attend with her.

In her submission, the worker outlined the efforts she has made in communications with the director of care, her manager and the programme manager to get a resolution to her concern that the night staff are excluded, and the toll on her mental health from the issue not being resolved.  In late 2023, she wrote to the head of HR, who suggested counselling.  She told the head of HR that counselling would not resolve the issues she was facing, and that she needed to be moved.  She said that, following her email to the director of care on September 4th 2023, she began to receive a full handover from the deputy person in charge, as he was covering the 4.00pm to 8.00pm shift.  She said that she shouldn’t have had to inform the director of care about the problems she was facing before they were addressed.

Summarising her concerns, the worker said that “the embedded mindset is that nothing happens after 4pm or at weekends when the person in charge is off duty.”  She said that this is unsafe and fails the service users. 

Concluding his submission on behalf of the worker, Mr Cullen referred to the issues she has experienced over a two-year period since 2022.  He said that sexist comments have been made to the worker, she has been followed outside the workplace and denied important information related to service users.  She feels intimidated and excluded by some managers.  She feels that her grievances have not been fully investigated, and, although she has engaged with local management and HR, the outcome is not satisfactory.  The protracted nature of the worker’s grievances resulted in her suffering from stress and anxiety and she had to take time off on sick leave.  Before these events, her attendance was extremely good.

Mr Cullen asked me to explore a potential “bridging mechanism” to resolve the current dispute between the worker and her employer.

In Mr Gilfedder’s submission, he included a schedule of the email correspondence, meetings, mediation and the grievance hearing that took place between October 2022 and December 12th 2024, when the worker submitted this complaint to the WRC.  On the employer’s side, the managers who have engaged with the worker are, the programme manager and the acting head of people and culture, her line manager, the HR business partner and the head of people and culture.  The programme manager and the acting head of people and culture attended this hearing at the WRC on May 28th 2025

I note from the employer’s submission that some matters were closed, such as a complaint the worker made about the use of a WhatsApp group and an issue with breaks.  The worker said in her submission that she received proper handovers from September 2023.  In November 2023, the worker’s grievance about the lack of communication between her and her manager was upheld.

The worker continued to look for a move from the house where she was working, but she declined several options because she would have had to change her shift for a short period and she is not able to change because of her family care commitments.  Also in November 2023, the worker engaged in separate mediation with her line manager and with the colleague who she complained about but that there was no satisfactory outcome from that process.

It is the employer’s position that they have supported the worker regarding the issues she raised and that they have engaged with the worker under the heading of the grievance process.  Mr Gilfedder referred to the four stages of the grievance procedure.  He said that the worker invoked the informal stage of the procedure when she spoke with her colleague in November 2022, after raising her concerns with the programme manager.  In July 2023, she raised a grievance with the HR business partner and a hearing on this took place in August 2023.  The worker appealed against the outcome of the grievance and that outcome was provided to her in November 2023.  From November 2023 until January 2024, the worker participated in mediation with her line manager and her colleague, facilitated by an external consultant, but this ended without a resolution.  In February 2024, the worker requested the involvement of SIPTU to assist with having her issues addressed.  In December 2024, she submitted this dispute to the WRC.

Mr Gilfedder said that the employer has adhered to its grievance procedures and that the issue facing the parties is the worker’s dissatisfaction with the outcome of the grievance and the appeal.

At the hearing of this dispute, it was apparent that the problem at the heart of the concerns raised by the worker is a sense that the night staff have a different experience of working life compared to those who work on days, or those who work a shift that alternates between days and nights.  The worker described feeling excluded, not informed and not provided with the same resources compared to staff who work on days.

Having considered this dispute, it seems to me that the worker’s need to work only the night shift contributes to her sense of being excluded and out of the loop, because the nature of working life is that most decisions are made during the day, most meetings take place during the day and all the administrative and organisational functions of an organisation happen generally between 9.00am and 5.00pm.

At the hearing, the worker said that she is seeking an acknowledgement that the service users have been failed by the way in which handovers were less than thorough and because of the failure of her manager to communicate with her.  In my role as the adjudicator in this matter, this is not a conclusion I can reach, and I have no authority to make a finding that the service users were failed, or even the information on which to base such a conclusion.   

I note the findings of the head of people and culture in November 2023, that there was some substance to the worker’s case that communication between her and her line manager was not satisfactory.  I note also that the head of people and culture recommended that the worker engage in mediation, which, ultimately, wasn’t successful.

To try to find a resolution to the issues raised by the worker, I asked the employer to draft terms of reference for a group to be set up to address communications and operational risks to patients.  On June 27th 2025, Mr Gilfedder sent me a document with the terms of reference for the establishment of a communication and operational risk review committee.  The document states that,

The purpose of the Communication and Operational Risk Review Committee (“the Committee”) is to evaluate and enhance communications strategies, assess risks associated with lone working, and establish effective handover procedures to ensure operational consistency and staff safety across night and day shifts.

I note that is proposed that the membership of the committee will include senior management, human resources, day and night shift staff, including lone workers, a health and safety officer and a union representative.

It is my view that these terms of reference provide a constructive starting point to the objective of improving communications across the day and night shifts and particularly between management and night staff, so that communication deficits can be identified and addressed, for the benefit of the service users and the care workers.

To bring these grievances to a conclusion, I recommend that the employer invites the worker to participate as a member on the proposed communication and operational risk review committee.  I recommend also that the committee puts in place a review process to ensure that its objectives are being met and to address any shortfalls.  Finally, I recommend that the employer and the worker regard the establishment of this committee as an ongoing measure to resolve the issues of exclusion raised by the worker since 2022.

Workplace grievance