Case Number: ADJ-00005683. Workplace Relations Commission

• Judgment Date: 01 September 2017
• Year: 2017
• Docket Number: ADJ-00005683
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission
• Parties: A Social Worker V A Public Body

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00005683 Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	A Social Worker	A Public Body

Complaint:

Act	Complaint Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977	CA-00007922-001	1st November 2016

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 3rd May 2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham

Procedure:

On the 1^st November 2016, the complainant submitted a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission pursuant to the Unfair Dismissals Acts. The complaint was scheduled for adjudication on the 3^rd May 2017. The complainant attended the adjudication in person. IBEC represented the respondent and the Deputy Director of Operations and the HR Manager attended as witnesses.

In accordance with section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission, 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 worked for the respondent between the 20^th July 2015 and the 28^th August 2016. He was paid €1,900 per fortnight. His role was that of residential social care worker and the respondent is a public service provider. The complainant claims that he was constructively dismissed from his employment and the respondent denies the claim.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

At the outset of the adjudication, the complainant said that he had a very good relationship with his two former colleagues present at the adjudication. He indicated that he had hoped that this matter would be amenable to mediation. The complainant liked working for the respondent and regretted leaving. He submitted this complaint to have someone independent look at his reasons for leaving his employment. In his new role, he now attends the respondent facility to visit one particular client. He is paid less in the new role and also has a long commute.

The complainant said that he resigned because of the behaviour of colleagues around a promotion competition for the role of unit manager in which he participated. He found it difficult to cope with the fact that his application for the role was disclosed to colleagues. He states that he resigned as the situation became unbearable. Matters came to a head in July 2016 and he applied for an alternative role, not anticipating the long commute. He accommodated the respondent by putting back his resignation to the 28^th August 2016 as the respondent was short-staffed.

The complainant said that the coaching session had taken place on Friday, 3^rd June 2016. The sessions had been scheduled so that no one would know who else was going for the role. At this time, a named colleague informed the complainant that she had received a coaching session and was aware of who else was going for the role, naming two other colleagues. He asked her how she knew and she replied that she had the “inside track”, i.e. another named colleague. It became awkward with this colleague because of the disclosure issue and because of an incident where a client had been able to take a mobile phone. A colleague also said to him that she could not believe that he had applied for the unit manager role, when she should not have known this at all.

The complainant also spoke with another colleague, who was also aware that he had gone for the unit manager role. His immediate reaction had been how did she know and he felt uncomfortable about this. He asked this colleague not to tell everyone and she offered her help. He also sought support from an internal support service, which he had engaged after a period of sick leave.

After he was not successful in obtaining the role, the complainant attended a feedback meeting with the Head of HR and the Deputy Director of Operations. While he had seen the scoring sheets, they were only disclosed to him during the course of this adjudication. Colleagues would have been able to see that he was going to and from a feedback meeting. The complainant raised the disclosure...