ADJ-00038119 - Workplace Relations Commission An Activities Co-Ordinator v Nursing Home

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 27 April 2023
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission

ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969

Investigation Recommendation Reference: ADJ 38119

Parties:

	Worker	Employer
Anonymised Parties	An Activities Co-Ordinator	Nursing Home

Dispute(s):

Act	Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Unfair Dismissal Act	CA-00049534	6 April 2022

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marguerite Buckley

Date of Hearing: 17/01/2023

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended) following the referral of the dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute(s).

Background:

This referral relates to the dismissal of an activities coordinator on 28 February 2022. As the worker did not have 12-month service, the referral was dealt with under the Industrial Relations Acts. The hearing was in person. There was no legal representation on either side. At the hearing I advised the worker that I was dealing with the case before made under the Industrial Relation Acts (being the complaint he filed) and that he should take legal advice if he wished to bring the complaint under different legislation. I gave sufficient time after the hearing for the worker to revert in this regard. As I have not received anything since the hearing from the worker, I have proceeded to consider the matter is presented before me at the hearing.

Summary of Workers Case:

The worker was employed as an activity’s coordinator on the 22 November 2021. On the 25 February 2022 he was called into a meeting with the head nurse and nursing home manager. This was described as an "informal chat about his duties". He was told not to leave the sitting room and not to assist any nurses or healthcare workers in lifting patients under any circumstances. In response, he raised the fact that he often had to get water for the residents as this was not being provided. He said that on occasion he was asked to help lift residents by nurses or healthcare assistants. He had training in patient handling. There was a dispute at the meeting as to whether the nursing home is short-staffed or not. The worker raised an incident that had happened on the previous Friday. He had noticed a resident in extreme pain and distress. He notified a nurse of this. 20 minutes later he noted the patient again in extreme distress. The worker intervened again with the nurse to seek medication for this resident. The worker was not happy that the manager advised him not to assist the other staff. He felt he was being quizzed inappropriately. He was not given an opportunity to answer the questions raised to support his case. As the meeting continued, he felt his heart speeding and found it hard to breathe. He felt dizzy and breathless. He pulled at his mask to get a breath. This action resulted in an abrupt response from the manager who told him to put his mask back on. The worker felt very upset that the manager had no consideration for his physical or mental health. He became worked up and wrote in his submission to the WRC that he said “these masks are going to be gone next week. It's like it was all a scam". The manager said to the worker that he had an attitude to wearing masks he should go home to rethink if he wanted to continue working there. The worker had very high blood pressure which was checked by the nurse at the meeting. He was left alone for a considerable period unchecked which he had an issue with. The meeting re-started again with the manager raising prior occasions where the worker was observed in the sitting room calling out bingo numbers with his mask not correctly in place. The worker pointed out to an earlier occasion where he was asked to sing and entertain the residents at the Christmas party without wearing a mask. The meeting ended and the worker went home as he was not feeling well. On Monday 28 February 2022 the worker attended work. He went to see the manager at the start of his shift. He was under the belief that wearing masks in a healthcare setting was no longer mandatory, but a recommendation. The worker this with the manager. She became very angry with him. She said it was the law for staff working in health care settings to wear masks. The worker queried the source of her information in this regard. In his written submission, the worker explained how he asked the manager how “would it be treated if he had an exemption”. He was told there are no exceptions. He was told "you either work here with a mask or not at all". He responded saying that masks were no longer required under the law. The worker was told to leave. He queried as to what this meant. After some time, the manager and the nurse came back into the meeting room. The manager said she had discussions, and it was decided to "terminate your contract as you are on probationary period". She said she didn't have to explain any reasons or otherwise. There was a discussion as to whether the worker was entitled to notice or not. The manager said, "leave now…you are no longer an employee". The worker explained that he left the Nursing home without being allowed to say goodbye to the residents or his work colleagues. The worker disputed that the manager had pulled him up on any issues during his employment. He said the issue of his mask wearing was never raised before his dismissal in February 2022.

Summary of Employer’s Case:

The nursing home manager gave evidence at the hearing. No written submission was provided however several documents were provided by her to me that were sent to the worker at the hearing before I reviewed them. This included letters from the HSE 17 January 2022 and 23 May 202 and a handwritten note of the meeting events on the 25 February 2022 and 28 February 2022. She said that the meeting on the 25 February 2022 was to go to the activities being carried out by the worker. She explained that throughout the meeting, the worker had his face mask pulled down from his nose. The manager explained to him that he needed to wear a mask properly. He responded telling her about the new regulations on mask wearing. He said that HIQUA and NEPHT should be disbanded. The manager...