Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Anne  Trebicka

Ttm Healthcare

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

Apryl Hanlon Management Support (Ireland) Ltd

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 25 of the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act, 2012

CA-00070787-001

14/04/2025

The Complainant alleges that the Respondent was in breach of its legal obligations when it failed to secure her a position, following a disciplinary matter, at a hospital she had worked at for twelve years. The Respondent states that the matter was entirely out of its control as they had no power or influence over the hospital where the Complainant was placed. 

Anne  Trebicka – Affirmation.

The Complainant worked for the Respondent agency for 12 years. For all of those years she was placed in UHL. She has had no disciplinary issues until the 5th September.  On the 5th September 2024 She was on the night shift 5th.  When she woke up on the 6th.Septemebr 2024 she checked her phone and noticed that all of future shifts had been cancelled. She tried to contact the agency. Nobody answered. She sent an email and then she got a call. She asked why all the shifts had been cancelled. She was informed that a complaint had been received. She was not told the details of the complainant. The hospital had requested that the shifts be cancelled. At 4pm the Respondent called to tell her the reason for the cancellation. The allegation was that she was on her phone while she was caring for a patient and while that patient needed attention.  However, that patient was not directly under her care. The person on the phone asked her to send an email setting out her version of events. She sent that email on the 6th September. There was an investigation, and a disciplinary process, however the hospital did not provide any information in relation to the complaint. The outcome was favourable but she was given a letter of concern, and the case was closed. She wasn’t given any shifts in UHL after that.  The hospital would not respond to the Respondent’s emails. So the agency then placed her elsewhere. Her terms and conditions are different and more onerous than before. The Respondent did try to get her placed back at UHL but the client refused to let her back into the hospital. The Complainant is upset because there was no adverse outcome following the investigation but she wasn’t offered her normal shifts back

Because of all this incidence, The Complainant found herself:

- Jobless without notice and with no immediate explanation as to what she had done, no income for 3 to 8 weeks, no time line on when she could resume work and with a dent in her confidence and reputation as a healthcare assistant.

The Respondent accepts that the Complainant was placed in UCL and had been working there without incident for the past twelve years. The Respondent stated they had been contacted by the hospital who informed them of the incident and stated that they did not want the Complainant to be placed in the hospital in the future. The Agency did offer her work in other healthcare facilities as soon as places became available. The situation was entirely out of the Respondent’s control.

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent Agency for a period of 12 years, primarily assigned to UHL. She had no prior disciplinary record.

On the night of 5th September 2024, the Complainant worked her scheduled shift at UHL. On the morning of 6th September 2024, she discovered that all her future shifts at UHL had been cancelled. Attempts to contact the Respondent by phone were unsuccessful, and she subsequently sent an email requesting clarification.

The Respondent informed the Complainant that a complaint had been received from UHL and that the hospital had requested that her shifts be cancelled. The specific allegation concerned being on her phone while a patient required attention; however, the patient was not directly under her care. The Complainant submitted her account of events via email on the same day.

An investigation and disciplinary process were conducted. While the outcome was favourable to the Complainant and no finding of misconduct was recorded, a letter of concern was issued. Despite this, she was not offered further shifts at UHL. The Respondent attempted to liaise with UHL regarding reinstatement but received no response. The Complainant was subsequently offered alternative placements, which she accepted, although the terms were more onerous than her prior conditions at UHL.

I note that the Respondent acted in response to the hospital’s request and did not unilaterally decide to cancel shifts. The hospital alone was responsible for the cancelation of the Complainant’s shifts. The Respondent did make reasonable efforts to contact the hospital to have the Complainant reinstated; however, the hospital refused to allow her return.

The Respondent offered the Complainant alternative employment as soon as positions were available.

While the Complainant experienced inconvenience, loss of income, and a change in terms, the evidence does not support a finding that the Respondent breached the Protection of Employees ( Temporary Agency Work)  Act or any statutory duty. Accordingly the complaint fails.

The complaint fails.