WRC recommends order of nuns pay domestic worker €2k for procedural unfairness in termination of employment

The State workplace watchdog has recommended that a group of nuns pay a former domestic and print worker €2,000 for the procedural unfairness in how her employment was ended.

This follows Adjudication Officer at the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), Enda Murphy, finding that the decision by the unnamed religious order to terminate the employment of the general operative was procedurally unfair.

In his findings, Mr Murphy stated that he accepted the religious order’s contention that the worker’s employment was terminated due to redundancy on November 30, 2017.

He said: “However, I find that there was an absence of procedural fairness in relation to the manner in which the decision to terminate the Complainant’s employment was taken.”

Mr Murphy stated that in particular, the religious order did not engage in any process of consultation in relation to the proposed redundancy or give the worker any prior notice that her position was in jeopardy.

The worker didn’t have the requisite 12 months employment to seek binding redress in respect of an unfair dismissal claim so the WRC can only recommend, but not order, the nuns to make the €2,000 payment.

Mr Murphy recommended that the €2,000 be paid in full and final settlement of the dispute.

The Religious Order conducts a small printing press operation and the worker was employed by the order as a General Operative carrying out both domestic and printing duties during her period of employment.

At the WRC, the worker claimed that she was subjected to narcissist abuse by one nun during her period of employment and she was afraid to say anything in case “she set her off”.

The worker claimed that she suffered severe trauma as a result of the bullying and harassment to which she was subjected by the nun.

The worker claimed that she has suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder as a result of the trauma she had to endure during her period of employment with the Order and has not been medically fit to work since her dismissal.

In response, the religious order vehemently denied the worker’s claim that she was subjected to bullying and harassment in the workplace by one of the nuns during her period of employment.

The order pointed out that the worker failed to make any complaint or raise any grievance in relation to the alleged bullying or harassment during her period of employment.

The worker began her employment with the order in January 2017 and she worked for around six hours per week in the convent and a further 21 hours per week in the printing department.

The religious order stated that it terminated the complainant’s employment on November 30, 2017, on the basis of declining revenue from the printing department which meant that the Order could no longer afford to maintain her in employment.

The Order said that the complainant contacted the Order in Autumn of 2011 and expressed an interest in becoming a nun and she was afforded a one-month live-in period in order to allow her to understand and experience the way of life.

During this time, the Order stated that the Complainant actively participated in the Community’s work, though she was satisfied by its conclusion that she was not called to life as a nun. She left the community on good terms.

During a trip to a religious shrine in 2015, the Order again encountered the complainant.

According to the Order, she said that she had fallen on hard times, in that she had failed to gain employment, was reliant on job-seekers allowance, and had insufficient money for food and heating.

The Order offered the complainant the opportunity to come and stay at the convent intermittently and between September, 2015 and October, 2016, the Complainant made approximately six trips to the Community, and during those trips she was offered some employment and was allowed to stay in the convent on a rent-free basis.

In 2016 and 2017, the Order paid for the complainant to take trips to visit Rome and during the Summer of 2016, the Order renovated a property belonging to it and the Complainant was allowed to reside at this property on an informal basis in November, 2016.

The Complainant started working for the Order as an employee in January 2017.