Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A School Caretaker

An Educational Training Board

Representatives

Jay Power, Fórsa

Brian Kavanagh, 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 - 00004875

05/08/2025

The worker has been employed since 2005 as a Senior Caretaker with responsibility for the safety, security, and maintenance of the school. In September–October 2022, allegations arose concerning an interaction with a vulnerable student and second to this an interaction of a  workplace interpersonal issue.

The worker denied the allegations during a disciplinary process with union representation. Although a written warning was issued, the worker subsequently pursued all internal grievance and appeal procedures, which resulted in exoneration and acknowledgment of errors. The worker maintains that reputational impact and financial loss arising from the matter have not been fully addressed. The Worker seeks and apology and compensation of four weeks salary to resolve the matter.

The employer states that the 2022 disciplinary process was conducted in accordance with fair procedures and that the written warning was time‑limited, later expiring and being removed from the record. A grievance raised in May 2023 was progressed through all internal stages, resulting in remedial actions including overtime payment, clarification of duties, provision of keys, and the commissioning of external investigation and support measures. The employer maintains that all procedures have been fully implemented and exhausted and that its contractual and statutory obligations have been met. The Employer refutes the idea of an apology or compensation.

The worker has been employed  since 2005 as a Senior Caretaker, a role involving significant responsibility for the safety, security, and maintenance of the school environment. The worker has a long record of service and satisfactory performance.

In September 2022, allegations were made against the worker and were denied during a disciplinary process with union representation. A written warning was issued; however, the worker pursued all internal grievance and appeal procedures. Subsequent findings cleared the worker of any wrongdoing and acknowledged errors by the employer.

Despite exoneration, the worker states that the reputational impact, lack of apology, and financial losses have not been fully addressed. Continued engagement has not resolved these matters, and compensation equivalent to four weeks’ wages  and an apology is sought in line with comparable WRC decisions.

The Worker was subject to a disciplinary process in September–October 2022 following concerns arising from an interaction with a vulnerable student and ongoing workplace interpersonal issues. A written warning and improvement plan were issued in line with fair procedures, were time‑limited, and subsequently expired and were removed from the disciplinary record.

In May 2023, the Worker raised a formal grievance alleging unfair treatment, changes to duties, loss of earnings, and discrimination. The grievance was progressed through the internal procedure to Stage 3, where the issues were comprehensively examined. An acknowledged misunderstanding regarding overtime was rectified by an additional day’s pay, which was accepted. Directions were issued regarding duties, keys, overtime, and the commissioning of an external investigation into interpersonal issues.

The Employer undertook steps to implement the Stage 3 outcome, including role restoration, provision of keys, engagement of an external investigator, and restorative measures. A further Stage 4 appeal was submitted in January 2024 and formally addressed in May 2024. Additional measures included an external investigation, staff training, and a health and safety risk assessment.

In August 2025, the Worker referred the matter to the WRC. The Employer maintains that all disciplinary and grievance processes were fairly conducted, fully implemented, and exhausted, and that it has met its contractual and statutory obligations throughout.   

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

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 provides a voluntary, non‑binding mechanism for the resolution of industrial relations disputes through the Workplace Relations Commission. Under this provision, an Adjudication Officer’s role is to inquire into the dispute, consider the submissions of both parties, and seek to promote resolution by making a recommendation that is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. The Adjudicator does not determine legal rights or liabilities, nor issue a legally enforceable decision; rather, the recommendation carries persuasive authority and reflects an industrial relations assessment aimed at facilitating agreement, restoring workplace relations, or bringing closure to the dispute.

The Interpersonal issue  referred to was dealt with through a process internally and exonerated the Worker.

The other issue of the interaction with the vulnerable student was dealt with as a separate issue and there was a waring on the file, at this time the Worker was ill and absent from the workplace and the warning was spent on his return and the school considered the matter closed.

It was the complaint of the Worker that he received no support throughout the process,  and this was rebutted by the Employer and demonstrated that this had been in the letter written to him. The matter of literacy was raised by the Worker, and the position of the Employer is that the Worker had the benefit of union representation at all times.

The heart of the issue is the injury felt by the Worker to his reputation and his sense of self, who for whatever reason, did not get the benefit of the EAP service. The working relationship with the current principal is described as very positive by the Worker and clearly some progress has been made in rebuilding matters.

The idea of an apology is completely rejected by the Employer who contend that the processes were in place and were followed and that they are of the view that have handled the matter very well. I cannot disagree with position from the papers and from the hearing. The Employer is clearly at a loss as to anything further they can do, they have flatly rejected the idea of an apology, and such a recommendation is futile for me to recommend where it will not be made honestly. The issue of four weeks salary is the figure arrived at the Worker and his representative, and the Employer has difficulties in meeting that for internal reasons related to public funding.

I am required to recommend, if it is possible, a solution to the parties to put the matter behind them in final resolution of the matter. It appears some time has already been spent by the Conciliation Service to  varying success in this goal.

That said,  it seems to me that Worker has not had the benefit of the EAP service for whatever reason, and I recommend that the Worker utilise this to help him come to terms with the issue. If the Worker has any issues in accessing this, I recommend that he approach the principal. Further to that, I recommend that the Employer allow the Worker 2 days leave to be taken at a mutually agreed date in this or next year’s annual leave allocation.

Procedural Fairness -   Employer Support - Literacy Considerations -  Employee Assistance Programme (EAP) - Reputational Harm - Leave as Recommended Redress