Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Caretaker

Provider of Community Employment Scheme

Representatives

Appeared In Person

Shane MacSweeney MacSweeney & Company Solicitors

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 - 00003834

18/02/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00003835

18/02/2025

Both of these Disputes were received by the WRC on 18 February 2025.

The Employer sought to argue that they were not afforded the requisite days to object to the proposed investigation and sought not to participate in the closed hearing set for December 19, 2025.

The WRC confirmed that the investigation would proceed, for want of an on-time objection, i.e. within 21 days of notification of the disputes. other matters were discussed on December 19 last Employer confirmed they wished to be associated with a resolution in these disputes.

I respected their stated desire of 23 May 2025 not to participate in an investigation under the Industrial Relations Act 1969 but could see on 19 December 2025 that the Employer was endeavouring to understand the Disputes raised by the worker.

I afforded time to the parties to explore whether they wished to seek an informal resolution. I appreciated the efforts made by both parties. no resolution grew on that day.

I now proceed to a Recommendation for both Parties consideration.

The Worker outlined that he had been bullied in his job as a Caretaker on the CE Scheme, where he had been placed for 10 years.

Changes at his host site had resulted in him being isolated up to the point where he believed that he had been bullied disciplined and dismissed.

He later clarified that he was not a recipient of a disciplinary action nor was he   dismissed and while a recipient of the dignity at work policy, he had not actioned this, Policy.

The Worker came to hearing from extended sick leave. He sought a restoration of his key role on the host site.

The Employer operates a CE Scheme and had supported the Worker unusually over a 10-year period.

The Employer outlined the parameters of what they can achieve in CE scheme employment, where it was never intended that a Participant would still be on the CE Scheme 10 years down the road.

The Employer respected the work and standards adopted by the Worker but they did not yield any power and influence when the host site sought to follow a more modern path of risk assessment , management , policies , cultural expansion in client base , garda vetting when children are present and management of anti-social behaviour .

The Employer practiced an empathetic approach towards the worker when they gently sought to support him into relaunching into a more suitable location. they had not anticipated just how embedded he was on the host site and how much he had drawn on his contribution there to support his identify.

His supervisor outlined that she tried to navigate a safe solution within the permitted mobility clause of the CE Scheme.

She assumed that she had achieved that with the mutually agreed new start.

However, the Worker changed his mind and proceeded on sick leave from where this case emerged.

The Employer submitted that they had not been given a chance to execute their own policies to assist the worker and the WRC was a premature step.

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

This has been a very acrimonious dispute on the worker side. The Employer has sought to resolve the impasse between the parties. The Worker has more to do.

Time has passed .

I have found some merit in the Workers stated disputes, but I must address the parties that the intervention of the WRC in this Dispute normally commences once the local policies and procedures have been exhausted.

The Worker believes that he is no longer wanted at the host site, having given 10 years of his life on a CE Scheme, which is a modem to relaunch back into the workforce.

The Employer is chasing stability and has an overarching responsibility to preserve the ethos of the CE scheme at their facilities .

His employer wants to assist him, but trust has now eroded on both sides.

I would request that the worker reflects on the assistance the employer has given him since 2024 on this topic and draws a line in the sand to move forward.

I make the following Recommendation to the Parties to consider on the basis that the Worker has been deemed fit to return to work.

That the CEO of the Employer CE Scheme meets with the worker with one support person and his supervisor within 4 weeks of this Recommendation.

The purpose of that meeting is to plan a mutually agreeable return to work in an agreed location with shared objectives.

The Parties should accept that the 10-year historical host base is no longer viable, and changes should be agreed under the Complainants Participation Development Programme.

In the event that mutual agreement is not achievable, and a start date not realised, parties should consider Mediation with an agreed Mediator to resolve the dispute.

CE Scheme, Conflict on the host site