Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
A SOCIAL CARE worker has been awarded just under €3,000 from his former employer after it emerged he had been sacked over revelations emerging from his Garda vetting.
The man commenced work with his employer, a care home, in December 2017.
He was let go less than one month later.
The man, making his case at a hearing of the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), said that he had made the home aware of his conviction at the time of his interview in November of 2017.
He subsequently volunteered his Garda Vetting Form from his previous employer, who he had worked for for three years and was leaving in order to take up the new position.
Garda vetting is required under Irish law for all people aiming to work with either children or vulnerable adults.
After the man submitted his GVF, his new employer acknowledged the receipt of same and asked him to commence work two weeks later on 11 December, which he did.
One month into that employment, on 3 January 2018, the received a call from the care home’s HR manager telling him not to attend work that day because of a disclosure on the GVF.
‘Treated very unfairly’
The following day he received an email telling him that his complaint had been terminated. He appealed the decision and said he was being “treated very unfairly”. That appeal was denied.
No representative from the care home attended the WRC adjudication hearing. However, emails submitted by the man showed the home was of the opinion that, while the man had admitted to a 2001 conviction in his interview, he had not mentioned another conviction dating from 2013.
Following the man’s dismissal he remained out of work for three months until April, whereupon he started a new role on slightly better terms.
Ruling on the matter, adjudication officer Roger McGrath stated that the home had not, in his opinion, been unfair in dismissing the man as “the existence of previous convictions had serious implications for the Respondent”.
However, he said the home had been remiss in not granting the man an initial hearing to state his case, and that this was a break with the home’s obligation to utilise fair procedures.
As a result, McGrath concluded that the man had been unfairly dismissed, and recommended that he be awarded one month’s pay, or €2,984.82.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
So the employer had not been unfair in dismissing him but it was an unfair dismissal…..somebody please explain
@John Horan: Like a lot of these, companies lose due to not following procedures.
This article is all over the gaff?
@John Magee: Standard of writing is not very good. “Received an email telling him his complaint had been terminated”. I think that was my favourite bit… Surely it was his employment that was terminated?
But surely clean Garda Vetting was a condition of his employment?
Ireland’s becoming unemployable.
If he did not have Garda clearance why was he employed in the first place,There is a reason for garda vetting,and any employer should be held to account for employing people who are not cleared,
If anyone starts employment while waiting Garda clearance, it should state in your contract that the offer of employment will be withdrawn immediately if no clearance given.
No rocket science here just common sense.
@Brian Smith: but he used his GVF from a previous employment. This is not allowed anymore. I k ow this from much experience. Every employer must do there own vetting. This article is messy to say the least.
Couple of points on this from reading the actual decision. Firstly the claim was taken under the industrial relations act which is not binding so rather than award they “recommend” an award which the employer can disregard, which judging by their failure to show up (which they aren’t obliged to) is likely to happen. Secondly the title of the article is misleading the individual wasn’t awarded money for being unfairly dismissed for an unsatisfactory vetting form it was for the employers apparent failure to follow a fair process. Although they may have disputed this had they wished to attend the hearing.
have your say