Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Childcare Educator

A Childcare Provider

Representatives

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969

IR - SC - 00004084

08/04/2025

The Worker, a Childcare Educator, commenced employment with the Employer on 2 September 2024 and was given notice of termination of employment on 31 March 2025 with her last day of work being 4 April 2025.

The Employer appeared with a representative with the Crèche Owner making a detailed submission in response to the dispute.

The Worker submitted that she commenced employment with the Employer and that, up to February 2025, no issues had ever been raised regarding her work or performance.

The Worker submitted that on 25 February 2025 she lodged a formal complaint to the WRC regarding the non‑payment of sick pay. The following day, 26 February, the Manager gave her a permanent contract to sign. She stated that on 28 February the Employer received official notification of her WRC complaint.

The Worker submitted that on 26 March 2025 an incident occurred in which a child went home with a soiled nappy. She stated that the three staff members responsible for the room, including herself, attended a brief meeting where they were reminded to check nappies more frequently, especially before home time. She emphasised that this was not a disciplinary warning.

The Worker submitted that on Friday 28 March 2025, just before finishing her shift, the Manager informed her that a meeting would take place the following Monday.

The Worker stated that on 31 March 2025, she was called into a meeting with the Manager and the Crèche Owner and was informed that she was being given five days’ notice of termination, with her final working day to be that Friday. She stated that the only reason given for her dismissal was that she was “not the perfect match for their business.”

The Worker submitted that this dismissal came less than a month after she had made a complaint to the WRC regarding unpaid sick leave, and only weeks after signing a permanent contract. She stated that no concerns about her performance had ever been raised prior to her complaint.

The Worker therefore submitted that the true reason for her dismissal was her decision to assert her statutory rights and pursue a WRC complaint, and that her termination was retaliatory, lacked fair procedures, and was without proper grounds.

The Employer submitted that they hold serious responsibility for the welfare and safety of children in the childcare centre. The Crèche Owner stated that they had several conversations with the Worker in which they attempted to guide and support her, but they observed little improvement. They asserted that on multiple occasions the Worker appeared disengaged from the children, showed limited empathy, and was at times using her phone instead of focusing on the children in her care.

The Employer submitted that regular staff meetings were held and that the Worker was spoken to on several occasions about her performance. They stated that the situation escalated when an incident occurred in which a child in the Worker’s care sustained what the Crèche Owner described as severe scalding injuries the worst they had seen in their 21‑year career. They stated that photographs of the injuries were provided and that the parents had made a complaint.

The Employer submitted that there had been no real improvement in the Worker’s performance over a prolonged period. Following the incident and after consulting their HR provider, they believed they had no option but to terminate the Worker’s employment in line with her contract, as they could not allow any further risk to children under their care. They stated that they outlined the grounds for dismissal to the Worker and that she agreed with their assessment.

The Employer further submitted that the Worker’s previous complaint to the WRC regarding sick pay had been resolved. They stated that correspondence from the WRC confirmed that the Worker had withdrawn that complaint and that the matter was closed, and therefore unrelated to the decision to terminate her employment.

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

The Worker was provided with a contract of employment which was dated 26 February 2025 several months after her commencement date.

It is noted the contract contains a probation clause cover the initial six months of employment which expired on 3 March 2025.

The submission of the Creche Owner was very credible where it was clear that she had ongoing engagement with the Worker and her colleagues. It was also clear that due to the nature of the business, there is a very high standard of care expected of the Worker. The Worker was fully trained in these procedures.

The dismissal was in reaction to a complaint from the parent of a child which was supported by documentary evidence, therefore, it was performance related dismissal. There was no disciplinary investigation conducted by the Employer in accordance with its Disciplinary Procedure where the complaint related to the performance of the Worker. This was not in dispute.