Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

An Employee

An Employer

Representatives

Representative Association

Employee Relations Bureau

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 - 00004820

28/07/2025

The Worker referred her dispute to the Workplace Relations Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the WRC”) on 28 July 2025. The dispute arises from events on 4 October 2023. The Worker was rostered to commence duty at 19:00hrs but did not attend at the scheduled time, having unintentionally slept through her alarm following earlier employment obligations.

Attempts were made to contact the Worker by telephone and text message. When these attempts were unsuccessful, a superior attended at the Worker’s private residence. The situation escalated to the point where entry to the dwelling was contemplated. The Worker subsequently responded and later attended for duty.

The Worker subsequently raised a complaint under the employer’s Dispute Resolution Procedures, alleging that the conduct of the superior was disproportionate, intrusive, and not genuinely welfare-driven.

The complaint was investigated at three stages under the Dispute Resolution Procedures by progressively more senior individuals. On each occasion, the complaint was not upheld, and it was determined that the superior’s actions arose from concerns regarding the Worker’s welfare.

The Worker remains dissatisfied with that outcome and has referred the matter to the WRC.

The Worker submits that the attendance at her private residence was excessive, intrusive and disproportionate in circumstances where she had unintentionally overslept.

She contends that the actions taken were operational in nature and that the subsequent reliance on welfare concerns represents a retrospective justification. In this regard, she relies on the absence of meaningful engagement with her on the night, the failure to verify her wellbeing, the absence of any referral to support services such as the Employee Assistance Service or Chief Medical Officer, the lack of any follow-up welfare engagement, and the absence of any contemporaneous explanation.

The Worker further submits that the incident caused her significant personal distress, embarrassment, and reputational damage, including arising from the involvement of her landlord and subsequent discussion among colleagues.

She also raises concerns regarding subsequent interactions with management, including questioning relating to alcohol use, which she states was unsupported by evidence.

The Worker submits that the internal investigation process failed to adequately address the proportionality of the response and instead relied on unsubstantiated concerns and retrospective justification. She contends that she was not provided with a clear or satisfactory explanation and seeks appropriate redress.

The Employer submits that the Worker’s complaint was fully and fairly investigated in accordance with the agreed Dispute Resolution Procedures, which constitute a collective agreement.

It is submitted that three separate investigations were conducted by progressively more senior individuals, each of whom concluded that the superior acted out of concern for the Worker’s welfare.

The Employer emphasises that no disciplinary action was taken against the Worker in relation to the events in question.

It is further submitted that the Worker has not identified any procedural deficiencies in the conduct of the investigations and that her complaint amounts to a disagreement with the outcome reached, rather than evidence of unfairness.

The Employer submits that the Worker did receive an explanation, namely that the actions taken were based on welfare concerns, albeit this is not accepted by her.

The Employer seeks a recommendation that the matter be regarded as concluded and that the parties move on.

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

It is not in dispute that the Worker did not attend for duty at the scheduled time and was not contactable despite repeated attempts.

The Worker submits that the subsequent intervention at her private residence was disproportionate to the circumstances. I have carefully considered that submission. In circumstances where the Worker did not attend for duty, could not be contacted, and no explanation was available at the time, it was open to management to escalate their response.

While the Worker regarded the intervention as intrusive and distressing, I am satisfied that in the circumstances of this case, and having regard to the inability to establish contact, it cannot be said to fall outside the range of responses reasonably open to management. The proportionality of the response must be assessed by reference to the information available at the time, rather than with the benefit of hindsight.

I also note that, at each stage of the internal process, it was accepted that the superior’s actions were informed by information communicated to him on the day which gave rise to a concern regarding the Worker’s welfare. While the investigations subsequently established that there was no evidential basis for those concerns, and no such allegation was pursued at the hearing before me, I am satisfied that it was open to the superior, at the time, to form a view that a welfare issue may have arisen based on the information available to him. This is relevant to the assessment of the reasonableness of the response.

I accept the Worker’s submission that the interaction on the night did not reflect what might ordinarily be expected where a welfare concern arises. In particular, I note the absence of any express inquiry as to her wellbeing when contact was established. However, I do not accept that this, of itself, invalidates the existence of a welfare concern at the time. The manner in which concern is communicated may vary depending on the circumstances in which events unfold, and the fact that the interaction did not take the form the Worker might reasonably have expected does not establish that the underlying concern was not genuine.

The Worker further submits that the welfare rationale was retrospectively relied upon. While I have carefully considered that submission, I am not satisfied that it is made out. Having regard to the Worker’s unexplained absence, the inability to establish contact, and the information available to the superior at the time, it was open to the investigators to conclude, on the balance of probabilities, that a welfare concern had arisen.

In relation to the internal process, I am satisfied that the complaint was examined through a comprehensive three-stage procedure under the Dispute Resolution Procedures by progressively more senior individuals. No evidence has been presented of procedural unfairness, bias, or failure to adhere to those procedures. The Worker’s dissatisfaction is directed at the conclusions reached, rather than the fairness of the process itself.

While I accept that the Worker experienced the intervention as intrusive and distressing, I do not consider that this displaces the central finding that the issue has been the subject of a thorough and procedurally sound internal process, the outcome of which was reasonably open to those charged with making it.

What is before me is, in substance, a continuing disagreement by the Worker with the conclusions reached following that process.