Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Nurse

A Healthcare Provider

Representatives

Self-Represented

Management Support Services (Ireland) Ltd

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act

IR - SC - 00003885

01/03/2025

The Worker was a Nurse with the Employer commencing her employment on 21 August 2024 until her employment was termination on 23 January 2025. She earned a gross weekly wage of €870 working over 40 hours per week. It was her dispute that she was unfairly dismissed from her position.

The Employer denied the allegation and relied on the investigation it carried out resulting in the fair dismissal of the Worker during her probationary period. Representatives from HR and the Regional Nurse Manager were in attendance at the hearing

The Worker, a Nurse, submits that she was unfairly dismissed by the Employer following a single incident on 2 January 2025, when she briefly dosed while on a day shift, having only recently transitioned from a long period of night work.

The Worker states that she had an unblemished record, consistently delivered high-quality care, and had received positive feedback prior to the incident. She accepts dosing momentarily but attributes this to fatigue arising from the shift change. She disputes additional allegations made during the investigation, including failure to take vital signs and check equipment, asserting these tasks were completed and recorded.

The Worker further contends that she experienced difficulties with the client’s expectations, including requests beyond her role, and had intended to raise these concerns with management. She submits that the investigation process was flawed, that she was not afforded a fair opportunity to fully present her case, and that dismissal was disproportionate in circumstances where no prior warnings or disciplinary issues had arisen.

The Worker also raises concerns regarding inconsistencies between the stated reason for dismissal (“sleeping on duty”) and the contents of the dismissal letter and submits that this has adversely affected her ability to secure alternative employment.

The Employer submits that the Worker, who was on probation, was dismissed following serious concerns regarding conduct and performance in the provision of care to a vulnerable child requiring constant supervision.

The Employer states that on 2 January 2025 the Worker was found asleep while holding the child, an incident reported via the a third party. The Employer regarded this as a serious breach of duty given the requirement for continuous observation. The Employer further asserts that the Worker had to be woken and disputes the Worker’s account that the incident was momentary.

Additional concerns arose regarding the Worker’s alleged failure to comply with care protocols, including monitoring vital signs, checking equipment, and following instructions in the care plan. The Employer also considered it problematic that the Worker declined certain requests from the client’s parent and did not escalate concerns or report the incident promptly.

The Employer conducted an investigation process, including two investigation meetings followed by a disciplinary hearing. The Worker was informed of the allegations and given an opportunity to respond. Having considered the findings, and the Worker’s probationary status, the Employer determined that the Worker was unsuitable for continued employment and terminated her employment on that basis, citing sleeping on duty and failure to follow required procedures.

Having considered the submissions of both the Worker and the Employer, it is noted that the dismissal arose during the Worker’s probationary period and followed an incident on 2 January 2025, together with additional concerns regarding adherence to care procedures.

It is accepted that the Employer was entitled to treat an allegation of sleeping while caring for a vulnerable child as a serious matter warranting investigation. However, there are concerns regarding the adequacy and transparency of the procedures followed. In particular, the absence of clear documentary evidence of the applicable disciplinary procedure, inconsistencies in the stated grounds for dismissal, and questions as to whether the Worker was afforded a full and fair opportunity to respond weigh against the Employer’s position.

While the Worker accepts a brief lapse, dismissal for a first incident, in the absence of prior warnings and in circumstances where mitigating factors (including shift transition) were advanced, appears disproportionate.

Accordingly, I find that the dispute is well-founded.

Given the short service and the probationary context, it is recommended that the Employer pay the Worker compensation of two weeks wages along with a statement of employment to reflect the procedural shortcomings and the disproportionate nature of the sanction.

It is recommended that the Employer pay the Worker compensation of two weeks wages along with a statement of employment to reflect the procedural shortcomings and the disproportionate nature of the sanction.