Case Number: ADJ-00021679. Workplace Relations Commission.
| Docket Number | ADJ-00021679 |
| Hearing Date | 21 October 2019 |
| Date | 01 March 2020 |
| Court | Workplace Relations Commission |
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00021679
Parties:
|
|
Complainant |
Respondent |
|
Anonymised Parties |
A Healthcare Assistant |
A Nursing Home |
Complaints:
|
Act |
Complaint/Dispute Reference No. |
Date of Receipt |
|
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 |
CA-00028413-001 |
14/05/2019 |
|
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 |
CA-00028413-002 |
14/05/2019 |
|
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 |
CA-00028413-003 |
14/05/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 21/10/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Andrew Heavey
Procedure:In accordance with Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
|
The complainant was employed by the respondent as a Healthcare Assistant from 3rd July 2017 until her dismissal for gross misconduct on 9th November 2018. The complaints were submitted to the Workplace Relations Commission on 14th May 2019. Note: Complaint applications No’s: CA-00028413-002 and CA-00028413-003 were withdrawn at the Adjudication Hearing. |
|
The respondent contends that the complainant was not unfairly dismissed. The respondent stated that during an investigation process into a complaint of bullying and harassment made by the complainant against her Line Manager, a colleague of the complainant made a statement that the complainant had posted a recording of residents of the Nursing Home on Social Media accompanied by the caption “f..k my actual life”. The respondent stated that the complainant was suspended on full pay while the matter was investigated and that a robust investigation and disciplinary process was carried out in line with its policies and procedures. The respondent stated that following the disciplinary process, the complainant was dismissed on the grounds that “breaching the respondent’s social media policy resulted in an irrevocable breach of trust and confidence”. The complainant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct. The respondent contends that the dismissal was procedurally and substantively fair having regard to all of the circumstances of the complainant’s actions. The respondent cited the cases of Elstone v CIE (High Court, 13 March 1987, unreported.) and Loftus and Healy v An Bord Telecom (High Court, 13 February 1987, unreported.) in support of its position that procedural flaws (although denied) do not render a dismissal unfair and that “all of the circumstances” must be considered. The respondent also cited the cases of Shortt v Royal Live Assurance Ltd [2008] IEHC 332, Laffoy J, RAS Medical Limted T/A Park West v The Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland [2017 IECA 228 and Kelly v CIE (Circuit Court, 11 February 1985) in support of its position that the respondent acted reasonably throughout the process and that the complainant was not unfairly dismissed. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
|
The complainant contends that she was denied fair procedures and was unfairly dismissed from her employment on 9th November 2018. The complainant acknowledged that the complaint was submitted to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) outside of the statutory six-month period and is seeking an extension of time as the short delay was due to the psychological and emotional distress she experienced throughout the disciplinary process. The complainant stated that having submitted a bullying and harassment complaint against her Line Manager in September 2018, the complainant was placed on a “supervision chart” which she felt was unfair and only applied to her as a result of having submitted the bullying and harassment complaint. The complainant stated that she accepted her error in posting the video to Snapchat and immediately apologised for her actions and assured the respondent that it would not happen again. The complainant outlined that other staff had also posted items on Social Media, yet they had only received final written warnings for their actions. The complainant argued that despite management’s assurance that it would be consistent in relation to its handling of the disciplinary process, it did not apply fair procedures to the complainant and was not consistent with the disciplinary sanction applied to the complainant in comparison to the sanctions received by other staff. The complainant also stated that she had not received adequate training on the Social Media Policy and that the respondent’s decision to summarily dismiss her was unreasonable and disproportionate. The complainant is seeking compensation in relation to her complaint. |
Findings and Conclusions:
|
Both parties provided written submissions at the adjudication hearing. Having considered all of the written documentation submitted by both parties, and the evidence adduced at the hearing of this complaint, I find as follows: The Applicable Law The Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977. Sections 6(1) and 6(4) of the Unfair Dismissal Act 1977 at relevant parts state as follows: 6.(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be an unfair dismissal unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal. 6.(4) ... |
To continue reading
Request your trial