ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC – 00004184
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | Receptionist | Medical Practise |
Representatives |
| Shane McDonald, McDonald Solicitors |
Dispute:
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 - 00004184 | 24/04/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | IR - SC - 00004185 | 24/04/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | IR - SC - 00004186 | 24/04/2025 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Date of Hearing: 19/08/2025
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969 (as amended by the Workplace Relations Act 2015 so as to include Adjudication Officers) and where a trade dispute (not specifically precluded by Sect. 13) has been identified and has been referred to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission, the said Director General will then refer such a dispute to an Adjudication Officer, so appointed for the purpose of having the said dispute heard in similar manner as has been set out in Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act which allows the Adjudication Officer to Investigate any dispute raised.
The Adjudication Officer will additionally and where appropriate hear all relevant oral evidence/testimony of the parties and their witnesses and will also take into account any and all documentary or other evidence which may be tendered in the course of the hearing.
A Trade Dispute in this context will include any dispute between an employer and a worker which is connected with the employment or the non-employment, or with the terms and conditions relating to and/or affecting the employment of any person.
I have confirmed that the Complainant herein is a Worker within the meaning of the Acts, and I have conducted an investigation into the said trade dispute as described in Section 13.
It is noted that Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969 empowers me to make a recommendation or recommendations to disputing parties on foot of any investigation so conducted. In making such recommendations, I am obliged to set out my opinion on the merits of the dispute and the positions taken by the parties thereto. I note that any consideration on the merits of the dispute will include an examination of the efforts made by the parties to exhaust any and all internal procedures or structures which ought to have been utilised before bringing the dispute to the attention of the WRC.
Where applicable, this investigation may involve an assessment of whether processes have complied with the general principles set out in the Code of Practise on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (SI146 of 2000).
Background:
This hearing was conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road, Dublin. In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) the hearing was conducted in recognition of the fact that all formal hearings should be conducted fairly. The hearing was not conducted in public as it concerned a dispute brought under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969. Industrial Relations disputes are primarily heard on the basis of factual submissions provided by the respective parties. Relevant parties might be invited to give an oral recollection of events, facts and matters within their knowledge. Testimony may be subject to rebuttal by witnesses or other relevant contradicting evidence provided by the other side. The specific details of the dispute are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 24th of April 2025. As the within matter is a dispute between parties and brought before the WRC using the Industrial Relations Acts it was heard in private, and the recommendation is anonymised. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The Complainant was not represented and made her own case. I was provided with two submission-type documents in advance of the hearing. The first was received on the 3rd of June 2025 and the second was received on the hearing date (August 19th 2025) and was drafted in reply to the Respondent submission dated the 23rd of July 2025. I was provided with supplemental documentary evidence in support of the Complainant’s case. This included letters and emails and WhatsApp messages. No objection was raised to any of the materials relied upon by the Complainant in making her case. The Evidence adduced by the Complainant was challenged as appropriate by the Respondent’s Representative. The Complainant alleges that she is the victim of a flawed and unfair disciplinary procedure which culminated in her receiving a formal letter of warning in circumstances where she felt she was given no warning, no chance to prepare herself, no chance to defend herself and no opportunity to appeal or otherwise address the sanction imposed. In her workplace relations complaint form, the Complainant has identified three issues for consideration by me under the IR process. These are: IR - SC – 00004184 - I believe that I was subjected to bullying and harassment by the Practice Manager who was highly critical of my work and did not offer any or much assistance or support. The practice is incredibly busy, and we have to deal with very vulnerable patients on a daily basis, and I believe the Practice Manager failed in her managerial duties to me and other members of staff as she was not equipped to offer the necessary supports and assistance required in her role. This led her to become highly critical of me when I was required to perform my role without the necessary supports and assistance. IR - SC – 00004185 - On the 14.11.2024, I was called into a meeting with the Practice Manager without any notification of same. I was not afforded a warning of this meeting and thus I was not in a position to arrange for a colleague to attend with me. At the meeting which involved Dr. MPM, Dr. CS and the Practice Manager, and I, I was alerted of complaints which had allegedly been submitted by patients of the practice regarding my interactions with them. I respectfully submit that I had never been made aware of any such complaints prior to this meeting nor was I afforded an opportunity to respond to these alleged complaints. I was furnished a written warning and advised that the meeting that day was not the forum to deal with my replies and that such replies / rebuttals would have to be submitted in writing. I believe this was another example of being subjected to bullying and harassment by the Practice Manager as I was again being targeted for her incompetency within the workplace and I felt I was being scapegoated. IR - SC – 00004186 - On the 16.01.2025, whilst on certified sick leave, I received a text message from Dr. M enquiring as to when I expected to return to work. I had at that time been on certified sick leave for only 16 days and the respondent had been furnished with a Sick Cert from the 30.12.2024 to the 24.01.2025. A subsequent message the following day, i.e. the 17.01.2025 also made enquiries on similar lines. This caused me undue stress as I should not have been contacted firstly in relation to work when out on sick leave nor should I have been pressured into making a decision of my return date when I ought to have been focusing on my health. Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries in the course of the hearing so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute.
|
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Respondent had full legal representation at this hearing. The Respondent entity was represented by a number of witnesses including the two medical Directors and the Practise Manager. One of the Medical Doctors Dr. CS had prepared a response to the allegations being made by the Complainant, and this reply is dated the 23rd of July 2025. The Respondent clearly regrets that things have escalated in the way in which they have, but appears to be saying that the Complainant’s own behaviour is the root cause. Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
I am absolutely satisfied that the Complainant was bounced into a disciplinary meeting on the 14th of November 2024 when she was confronted by the Practice Manager and the two Practice owners (Doctors CS and MM). The Complainant was handed a pre-prepared letter of Warning. The outcome of this “disciplinary” meeting was therefore a foregone conclusion. It is clear to me (based on the evidence of both sides) that the Complainant was not given a chance to defend herself, nor was it ever intended that she should be heard. The reasons for giving the warning were not given to the Complainant, and even after a full day of hearing before the WRC, I cannot be sure what exactly had happened in the workplace that triggered the need for this formal written letter of warning.
It is worth noting that the Complainant was not given a right of Appeal when this Disciplinary sanction was handed to her.
Dr. CS (who gave the primary evidence for the Respondent) seemed genuinely surprised that the Complainant reacted as badly as she did, and also that I (as the Adjudicator) agreed with the Complainant that this matter had been badly handled. To be fair to the Respondent witness Dr. CS (supported by his partner Dr. MM), he was prepared to concede that he is primarily a medical clinician and not an HR expert. He has acknowledged that taking on the HR function (which is precisely what he did in this instance) can waste time, lead to inconsistencies and risk poor decision-making processes. Dr. CS seemed to think that the Complainant would take the admonishment and move on. He did not perceive his action as being heavy handed.
Dr. CS has also asserted that the rationale for his then decision was that other members of staff were complaining about the Complainant, and that patients were also dissatisfied with the service the Complainant embodied on behalf of Medical Practice. Dr. CS appears to have believed that once the levels of such complaints reached a critical point, then he was entitled to upbraid the Complainant without any warning or explanation. Whilst Dr. CS asserts that there had been previous formal verbal warnings (without producing evidence of same), there is nothing to suggest that there were ongoing issues and if there had actually been any previous verbal warnings given then they could only have happened somewhere between 18 and 24 months prior to this. Again, the lack of HR training or function is evident to me. There are no personnel files and there is therefore nowhere to record issues as they arise. There is nowhere to record previous sanctions, and also nowhere to record the expiration of previous sanctions. There is no readily available Grievance procedure and whilst I was shown a Disciplinary Procedure there is no suggestion, based on the agreed evidence of the parties, that it was or had been implemented in this scenario. It is also noted that there are no performance improvement programmes, or other training programmes which might have been utilised before escalating issues to a formal warning.
It was in response to receiving the letter of warning (on November 14th) that the Complainant countered with her own letter of the 20th of November 2024 in defence of herself and of her performance in the workplace.
In her letter of the 20th of November, the Complainant asserted that many of her interactions with the patients were rendered more difficult by the fact that the Practise Manager (as her line Manager) was indecisive and lacked management skills. I cannot know if this is a correct assertion. Certainly before me, at eight months remove, the two Doctors vehemently defended their Practice Manager. However back in November 2024 when the allegation was raised, no attempt was made to address the issue much less to formally investigate it as a potential workplace Grievance. I recognise and appreciate that Dr. CS and Dr. MM did not appreciate the attempt made by the Complainant to place the blame on their Practice Manager. However rather than try and explore this inflammatory allegation at the time, they pulled the shutters down on the Complainant effectively starting a process of freezing her out.
To my mind the actions of the Employer demonstrate an intransigence coupled with a failure to understand what obligations are imposed on an employer even where the place of work might only include eight or nine people. At the very least an employer must be guided by the Code of Practise on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (SI146 of 2000) which offers the bear minimum expected of an employer and of which this employer seemed wholly unaware.
As previously noted, Dr CS did acknowledge that he has had no HR training, and his actions were more instinctive. Before me, he repeated a number of times that he hadn’t been aware of the fact that there is a proper and fair route to address workplace issues.
The sorry outcome to this incident is a state of stalemate between the parties. The Complainant perceived that she was being ignored and/or brushed aside when she had had the temerity to push back against the sanction imposed. Neither of the two Doctors addressed her concerns, and this was devastating to the Complainant who I believe looked up to her bosses as friends and confidantes. Her trust in the workplace is seemingly shattered. This fact is undoubtedly compounded by the extreme doubling down by Dr. CS in his submission to the WRC in June of 2025. This submission amounted to a personal critique of the Complainant which was borderline cruel. It was evident when giving their evidence that the two Doctors were very annoyed that the Complainant had brought these issues to the attention of the WRC. However, I accept that that the Complainant had no other choice in circumstances where there was no in-house structure which allowed her voice to be heard. It is in such circumstances that the WRC and the Industrial Relations legislation becomes the last resort for a genuine dispute to be heard.
The Complainant has been on sick leave since January 2025 and there seems little hope of her returning to this workplace though I have noted that the employment relationship is extant and the service is preserved. The Complainant will presumably be considering her options in this regard.
In the meantime:
IR - SC – 00004184 - I believe that I was subjected to bullying and harassment by the Practice Manager who was highly critical of my work and did not offer any or much assistance or support. The practice is incredibly busy, and we have to deal with very vulnerable patients on a daily basis, and I believe the Practice Manager failed in her managerial duties to me and other members of staff as she was not equipped to offer the necessary supports and assistance required in her role. This led her to become highly critical of me when I was required to perform my role without the necessary supports and assistance. In the three years that the Complainant worked in the Respondent Practice, the Complainant did not trigger a workplace grievance against her line Manager. In theory she has not exhausted the internal workplace procedures which might allow such an issue to be aired. However, I am not satisfied that the Complainant was made aware that there was grievance procedure which could be utilised. The in-house employee handbook was non-existent. The Complainant was not provided with the facility of resolving any issues in an appropriate and dignified manner.
IR - SC – 00004185 -On the 14.11.2024, I was called into a meeting with the Practice Manager without any notification of same. I was not afforded a warning of this meeting and thus I was not in a position to arrange for a colleague to attend with me. At the meeting which involved Dr. MPM, Dr. CS and the Practice Manager, and I, I was alerted of complaints which had allegedly been submitted by patients of the practice regarding my interactions with them. I respectfully submit that I had never been made aware of any such complaints prior to this meeting nor was I afforded an opportunity to respond to these alleged complaints. I was furnished a written warning and advised that the meeting that day was not the forum to deal with my replies and that such replies / rebuttals would have to be submitted in writing. I believe this was another example of being subjected to bullying and harassment by the Practice Manager as I was again being targeted for her incompetency within the workplace and I felt I was being scapegoated.
As noted, I accept that this meeting and the written warning which resulted from same disregarded any of the expected norms for ensuring the dignity of the employee in the workplace, and the provision of the minimum standards espoused in Code of Practise on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (SI146 of 2000)
IR - SC – 00004186 On the 16.01.2025, whilst on certified sick leave, I received a text message from Dr. M enquiring as to when I expected to return to work. I had at that time been on certified sick leave for only 16 days and the respondent had been furnished with a Sick Cert from the 30.12.2024 to the 24.01.2025. A subsequent message the following day, i.e. the 17.01.2025 also made enquiries on similar lines. This caused me undue stress as I should not have been contacted firstly in relation to work when out on sick leave nor should I have been pressured into making a decision of my return date when I ought to have been focusing on my health.
I accept that there is fine line between what is appropriate and inappropriate when it comes to communicating with an employee on extended sick leave. I do not think this communication was inappropriate in all the circumstances.
|
Recommendation:
Pursuant to Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969 I am obliged to make such recommendations as might be appropriate on foot of the investigation conducted and based on my opinion on the merits of the dispute as already outlined above, and the positions taken by the parties thereto. I note that any consideration on the merits of the dispute should include an examination of the efforts made by the parties to exhaust any and all internal procedures or structures which ought to have been utilised before bringing the dispute to the attention of the WRC.
I am satisfied that the Complainant has identified an enormous failing on the part of the Respondent employer. There is a gap where there should be Human Resource function. This has never been addressed, and I am recommending that the Employer engage a HR/employee relations professional body to assist with a root and branch application of a credible and meaningful HR function
I am also recommending that the Employer pay to the employee a sum of €1,500.00 in recognition of the fact that it has failed her by not having adequate employee relations structures in the workplace which has ultimately had a catastrophic impact on her. I am recommending that this money be paid within four weeks of the issuing of this decision.
I recommend that the parties engage for the purpose of bringing the Complainant back into the workplace or otherwise bring some finality to the employment relationship.
Dated: 30/09/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words:
|