A biochemist who was employed for 19 months at Children’s Health Ireland (CHI), and was accused of seeking to leverage a grievance procedure to obtain a full-time job, has lost her claim for unfair dismissal.
Representing herself at the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), Mary Ann Healy said she believed her complaint against her line manager prompted her dismissal.
She said she suffered from a lot of anxiety due to the handling of her complaint in which she alleged she was humiliated by the manager.
A process of mediation was established between the two employees in an attempt to resolve the issue, but this was unsuccessful. The complaint was not upheld after an internal review process.
Who is Michael Kelley, the man questioned over the murder of Michael Gaine?
Ireland’s extraordinary education revolution laid bare by two new reports
The Macron shove is not a sign of a very French love story, but something more disturbing
Ruby Eastwood: Why would anyone choose to live in a city as ridiculous as Dublin?
Ms Healy appealed, but her employment at CHI had finished by the time the appeal was considered. It was rejected on that basis.
Ms Healy told WRC adjudication officer Valerie Murtagh she did not believe the specified purpose contract she had been offered was genuine. She said the purpose was supposed to be providing cover for an employee seconded to another role but she had never been told who that person was.
She said the recruitment process was arduous and suggested the pre-employment checks were so demanding that the experience had “all the hallmarks” of being geared towards a permanent contract.
Instead, on June 17th, 2024, about 18 months into working with the organisation, she received a message from the HR department at CHI saying the purpose of her “specified purpose contract” has “come to an end”.
She was given four weeks’ notice.
Ms Healy said it was only when she was told her contract had ceased that she was informed she had been backfilling for someone who was returning.
Ms Healy, who was herself the subject of a complaint by an agency worker who provided some of her training, said she believed she was dismissed because of her complaint, adding that CHI sought to avoid acknowledging this by claiming her contract was up.
In its evidence to the commission, CHI, represented by Ibec, said Ms Healy was provided with a specified purpose contract.
CHI’s lawyers submitted that Ms Healy wanted an apology from her manager in front of her colleagues, a permanent contract and a pay increase to address her complaint.
In a decision in the case, Ms Murtagh said she was satisfied documentation provided by CHI established that another employee, whose name was not published, had returned to the post immediately after Ms Healy departed the role.
Based on this and other documentation supplied, she found the claim of unfair dismissal was not well-founded.
She similarly rejected claims made under the Organisation of Working Time Act and the Protection of employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003.
