Case Number: ADJ-00018430. Workplace Relations Commission

Date27 March 2019
Docket NumberADJ-00018430
CourtWorkplace Relations Commission
PartiesA Supervisor v A Hospital
Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.

Background:

The complainant had been employed as the ‘Housekeeping Supervisor’ and was initially employed in November 2008. He resigned on June 11th, 2018 and claims that he was constructively unfairly dismissed.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The complainant says that, following a series of events he was left with no option but to resign from his employment.

There had been an external audit of the respondent in respect of operations which formed part of the complainant’s area of responsibility; cleaning of the hospital. This took place while the complainant was on leave.

This resulted in disciplinary action against the complainant and removal of responsibility for the work at the centre of the audit.

This was the beginning of the complainant being undermined and effectively demoted. He was shadowed by and asked to report to a contractor who had been engaged to undertake work in the complainant ‘s former area of responsibility.

The contractor also made weekly reports which were hostile to the complainant.

In due course the complainant was so affected that he went on sick leave on November 17th 2018.

He did not return to work and resigned on June 11th, 2019.

The complainant says that there was a fundamental breach of the respondent’s duty of care to him and that he was justified in resigning.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The respondent was placed in a position by the external audit that required it to take immediate corrective action in relation to a critical area of its operations; the cleanliness of the hospital. This involved the appointment of external cleaning contractors which led to an immediate improvement in the situation.

The contractor also provided training to the complainant and the relevant staff and he was invited to observe and learn from the improved practise.

The disciplinary action only followed when he failed to respond to informal counselling and in any event resulted only in a first level warning.

In the circumstances of the difficulties facing it the respondent acted in a measured and appropriate way.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT