Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Supervisor              

Community Employment Scheme

Representatives

Self-represented             

HR consultant and Board members

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 - 00004215

30/04/2025

The worker has referred a dispute about the employer’s mistreatment of her which led her to resign on 3/7/2024. She is seeking compensation for this forced resignation.

She had been employed as a supervisor in the employer’s Community Employment scheme from 5/1/2015 – 12/7/2024.

She earned €747 gross a week.

She submitted her complaint to the WRC on 30/4/2025.

The worker was employed as a supervisor in the employer’s Community Employment scheme, whose purpose was to manage and organise community employment projects enabling long -term unemployed people and other disadvantaged groups to get back to work. She supervised 25 Community Employment workers. There are over 800 such schemes in the country. The worker’s role involved the preparation and administration of scheme accounts in accordance with the employer’s/ sponsor approvals. The scheme was funded by the Department of Social Protection (“DSP”).

The accounts for the relevant 2023-34-year period were prepared by the worker and approved by the independent auditors. Up to June 2024, no concerns had ever been raised with her by the funding department, the scheme or the committee.

The Board secretary asked her to make herself available for a meeting scheduled for 18/6/2023 when the DSP officials were coming to meet the Board to approve the funds for the next 3 years. She agreed though she was on annual leave from 17/6-9/7/2023.

On 18/6/2024, officials from the DSP arrived at a Board meeting in the workplace. The Board secretary advised her that the DSP had told her that €30-35,000 was missing from the employer’s account. She met the three Board members present and the DSP officials on the 18/6/2023. The DSP official told the worker at this meeting that €30-35000 was missing and asked her to explain where the missing money was. She told the worker that she was under investigation and that the Gardai would be asked to open the scheme’s bank account.

On 20/6/2023, the Board secretary telephoned asking her why there had been a transfer of €2,750 from another Community Employment scheme, X, into the sponsor’s account. The worker advised that she could not recall. The worker’s son saw that she was upset, took the phone and advised the Board secretary that his mother would deal with these queries upon her return from annual leave three weeks later.

She states that she was treated very unfairly and was wrongly accused of being responsible for missing monies.

She was not afforded advance notice and was not provided with an opportunity to respond in a structured way to the allegations. She should have been told in advance what was to be laid before her, that it was an investigation meeting into her role and her knowledge, if any, of missing monies. Before she left the June meeting, she gave unfettered access to all the accounts. In July 2024, she showed the employer the lodgements and expenditures in the accounts.

No formal investigation process was initiated and no written findings issued.

She maintains that the DSP erred in making this claim about these alleged missing funds. Now the allegations have proven to be unfounded.

The failure to correct or clarify these matters to the worker caused her great distress.

On 3/7/2024, the worker handed in her notice to her employer, telling the Board member that as the Board did not trust her, she was resigning. He wished her good luck and accepted her resignation.

Her last pay cheque was on 12/7/2024.

She sent emails to the employer’s accountants about the reported discrepancies. They would not assist her. The employer did not send her a copy of the Auditor’s report.

She confirmed to the adjudicator that she did not complain to the DSP who notified the Board and her that funds of the order of €30-35,000 were missing. She did not ask the employer to make a complaint to the DSP. She believes that the employer should have objected to the comments made by the DSP and should not have identified her as having a role or being responsible for these funds.

There is no Grievance procedure in the workplace.

She felt unable to stay in the workplace as the committee had leaked details about the missing funds to the extent that shopkeepers in the village were asking her about the missing money. Also, CE employees rang to ask her if it was true that money was missing.

Not one of the board members in her workplace reached out to see how she was.

The worker felt unable to return to the workplace as the employer did not intervene or support her when the DSP official told her that there was €30-35,000 missing and that she would be notifying the Gardai. The employer offered her no support. The employer no longer trusted her.  This erased the trustful relationship with her employer and led her to resign from her position with the employer on 3/7/2024

The employer denies that they dismissed the worker. She resigned during her annual leave and at no stage advised the employer why she was resigning.

The employer states that as the complaint of constructive dismissal was submitted more than 6 months after her dismissal, the complaint should be dismissed.

The employer received an email from the DSP (funding Department) to meet them. No subject matter was identified other than they were to explain to the DSP some funding items. They were obliged to respond to their funder’s enquiries. Previously they had come for rollover meetings concerning the next tranche of funding. The DSP officials did not disclose in advance what they were about to disclose to the Board.

They met the DSP officials on 18/6/2023. The DSP required answers from the Board to twenty queries. The Board was shocked to learn of discrepancies and at the disclosures put before them by the DSP officials

They did not specify an amount that was missing at the meeting.DSP officials emailed on 20/6/2023 to say that the sum of €16,300 had been transferred from another scheme, X, Into the employer’s account. This sum was based on four separate instalments lodged between September 2023 to January 2024.  The payment was made by the Supervisor in the other scheme, X, but should not have happened. The Board do not understand why this happened. It is not good procedure.

Some sponsors of the employees employed in the CE scheme projects were asked to make a donation of €400 per employee. The scheme has 25 employees.

On January 8th, 2024, a payment of €10,000 from the scheme was made into a Bank of Ireland account in a nearby town. The employer never had an account with any branch of this particular bank. No employee had any authority to create such an account without the employer’s knowledge and consent.

The employer put all these queries about these lodgements and payments to the worker after her resignation.

Remarks allegedly made after the worker resigned are hearsay.

The DSP officials notified the employer that invoices were missing for 2 lawnmowers costing €5440, and €9046, respectively, in the 2022-23 year. An invoice and receipt for college fees of €2000 for an unidentified university course for an unidentified person is not available.

The employer stated that they could not make a complaint to the worker when the investigation was ongoing.

The employer contrary to what the worker  has stated did not tell her that audited accounts were ok.

The DSP is not doing an investigation currently, but their investigation is not closed. They have sought invoices form the employer for goods purchased, which the employer is unable to supply as they are not available. The employer needs a forensic accountant to uncover some details and provide some explanations.

Summing up, the employer stated that the worker was not asked to leave. It would have been a lot easier for the employer had she remained and assisted them with their enquiries.

The Board never accused her of any wrongdoing re the accounts. The DSP sent them queries. The Board is unable to answer some of their queries. They don’t have answers.

The Board had no choice but to put the DSP enquiries to the worker who prepares the accounts. This was not mistreatment. The worker chose to resign.

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

Firstly the case presented by the employer that the dispute should be dismissed as it was not presented within six  months of her resignation is irrelevant, as this is a complaint submitted under  the Industrial Relations Act, 1969,  which does not impose this obligation on an employee unlike the Unfair Dismissals Act ,1977 which does, and which permits the referral of dispute from a worker who “was employed” by the employer. The process and remedies are different.

Secondly, it is not the function of the WRC in a dispute referred to it under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, to concur with or reject the DSP’s assessment and the subsequent employer’s acceptance that discrepancies existed in the accounts and that answers were required concerning lodgements and expenditures.

Contrary to what the worker states, the investigation is ongoing. No final conclusions have been reached.

The worker seeks compensation for what she considers to be unfair treatment leading to an involuntary resignation. She resigned on 3/7/2023 within 15 days of being advised of the discrepancies in the employer’s accounts. She was on annual leave at the time of her resignation.

Hence it is the employer’s behaviour towards her in that period of time which is material to this dispute.

As stated, and based on the information presented to me, it is not my function in a dispute referred to the WRC under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 to second guess the accounting systems of the relevant organisations. It is my function to consider the employer’s handling of the investigation in relation to the worker.

The employer had no option but to follow up on queries as to the destination of funds disbursed to them by the DSP, how these monies were expended, and to seek evidence of purchases. There are processes in place to ensure that public monies are used for the purposes for which they are intended and to ensure that there is transparency in the disbursement of these funds and that accounts deliver on that.

It was the DSP who made the statement to the worker that funds were missing. It was the DSP who told her that the Gardai would be notified and that an investigation would be initiated though the employer maintains that it was the scheme which was under investigation. Though the employer asked her questions in her capacity as the person responsible for the preparation and administration of the accounts, they did not state that she was responsible for the missing funds

The worker advised the adjudicator that she did not complain to the DSP, nor did she ask the employer to make a complaint to the DSP. Nor has she asked the DSP for any conclusions which they may have drawn from what was put to them by the worker or employer.

The worker maintains that she should have been notified in advance. The employer states that, curiously, they were not notified in advance, so they were unable to put the discrepancies to the worker in advance of the meeting of the 18/6/2024. She cites the failure of the employer to put a charge to her so she could reply in a structured way. But the employer states that the DSP has not closed the investigation, whatever about it being adjourned while the employer tries with the assistance of a forensic accountant to uncover the movement of funds in and out of the employer’s account. The absence of invoices for purchases which the employee states a colleague mistakenly shredded is another matter under ongoing investigation. At the point of the complainant’s resignation on the 3/7/2024, three weeks after the DSP notified them of account discrepancies, the employer had insufficient evidence to formulate a charge against the worker which she could answer, even if the basis for same existed or they were minded to do so.

The worker did not discuss her reasons for resignation and how it could have been avoided with the employer before she resigned. The worker’s resignation letter cites lack of support and mistrust of her. This seems to be based on the failure of the employer to reassure her that she was not responsible in any way for the discrepancies. But how could they give assurances to anyone, faced with the information to hand from the DSP.

The worked did not identify any processes which they ignored.

I consider that she was questioned and not accused by her employer.

The investigation into the anomalies in the accounts was open and ongoing in January 2025.

The Board are paying the sum of €16,340 into X CE scheme as money from X’s scheme’s account had been transferred to the employer’s scheme account. The management of X scheme are seeking these monies. After that is completed, the employer intends to engage a forensic accountant to uncover the anomalies and explain the movement of monies in and out of accounts.

Remarks allegedly made after the worker resigned and which she states impugn her character are not material to this dispute as she had resigned by then.

I consider that the decision to resign was the worker’s and was premature.

In terms of the employer’s treatment of her, they knew she was very distressed, and in circumstances where they had formed no conclusions, but were merely investigating, they should have sourced some Employee Assistance type support for the worker.

Given this omission, I recommend that the employer pay the worker compensation to the amount of €2000 in full and final settlement of this matter.

I recommend that the employer disclose all investigation conclusions and final reports to the worker.

IR. Involuntary resignation.