HSE worker who missed 50 weeks' work in five years gets €10k for unfair dismissal
Ms Rainsford worked for the HSE on a number of fixed-term contracts from November 2015 to October 2019.
A HSE West worker who had a pattern of absences totalling 50 weeks in five years has been awarded €10,000 for her unfair dismissal.
At the Labour Court, Deputy Chairman Tom Geraghty found that the scale of Mary Rainsford’s absences and her non-cooperation were significant contributors to the decision to dismiss.
The HSE West accepted that Ms Rainsford - who worked as an Intern Support - was unfairly dismissed and the only determination to be made by the Labour Court was the quantum of the compensation due to Ms Rainsford.
At the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), Ms Rainsford obtained an award of €5,000 and appealed only the quantum of the award to the Labour Court. The HSE accepted the WRC unfair dismissal determination and believed the €5,000 award was appropriate.
Mr Geraghty stated that there is a legitimate argument that the amount awarded by the Adjudication Officer at the WRC be increased “but the court also believes that the very significant contribution by the Complainant to her dismissal has to be reflected in the compensation to be awarded”.
Ms Rainsford worked for the HSE on a number of fixed-term contracts from November 2015 to October 2019. In the period May to September 2019, Ms Rainsford was facilitated with a three-day week, in which time she had no absences and this was after a major illness episode.
Mr Geraghty stated that the scale of Ms Rainsford’s absences and their frequency throughout her employment gave the HSE every right to act on their attendance management policy.
He also stated that the non-cooperation by Ms Rainsford in not attending meetings with the HSE’s occupational health advisors is, itself, a legitimate basis for the consideration of disciplinary action by the HSE.
Ms Rainsford was dismissed because of her absence profile and Siptu argued that she should have been afforded the full application of the HSE procedures.
Instead, the HSE issued Ms Rainsford a verbal warning for her attendance, Stage one of a four-stage disciplinary process and skipped all subsequent stages in dismissing her. Siptu also argued that Ms Rainsford was denied the right to appeal.
Siptu said that if this right had been afforded to her, she would have remained on full pay pending the outcome of the appeal which could have been for a further nine months.
The HSE stated that Ms Rainsford missed six appointments with Occupational Health concerning her absences.
They also said that Ms Rainsford was not afforded an appeal because the HSE believed that it was within its rights to terminate the employment at the end of a contract period and the HSE now accepts that this was incorrect.
