A woman who slept through her alarm for a 7pm shift and was later awakened by her boss has been denied compensation by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) for the “distress and embarrassment” caused by the incident.
One of the woman’s superiors travelled to her home on October 4th, 2023, after she failed to turn up for work and could not be contacted. The landlord became involved in efforts to locate her.
The woman reported for duty later that night but made a complaint under her employer’s dispute resolution procedures alleging that the visit to her home was excessive and intrusive.
The complaint was investigated and dismissed three times, with the employer finding on each occasion that the superior’s actions were based on concerns for her welfare.
The woman refused to accept this outcome, which she claimed was retrospective justification for the intrusion. She said there was a lack of meaningful engagement with her on the night in question and her superior took no steps to verify her wellbeing.
She was questioned by management regarding alcohol use after the incident and claimed the investigation processes failed to adequately address the proportionality of the response.
The complaint was referred to the WRC after going unresolved for almost two years. The woman sought “appropriate redress” for “significant personal distress, embarrassment, and reputational damage”.
Her employer told a WRC adjudication hearing that the complaint was fully and fairly investigated in accordance with agreed procedures. Each investigation concluded that the action was based on concern for the woman’s welfare.
The company emphasised that no disciplinary action was taken against the worker in relation to the events and her failure to attend work on the night in question.
They also noted that no procedural deficiencies were identified by the worker, and the complaint instead amounted to a disagreement over the outcome rather than any evidence of unfairness.
In her decision, WRC adjudicator Christina Ryan said she carefully considered the submission that the employer’s attendance at the worker’s private residence was disproportionate.
However, she concluded it was open to management to escalate its response when an employee failed to attend work, could not be contacted and no explanation was available at the time.
She noted that the manager’s actions were taken on the basis of information communicated to him on the day, which gave rise to a concern for the woman’s welfare. Investigations subsequently found there was no evidential basis for those concerns.
Ryan accepted the interaction on the night was not what might ordinarily be expected in the context of a welfare concern, noting that there was no express inquiry as to the woman’s wellbeing when she was located. However, she said this did not invalidate the existence of a welfare concern at the time.
She acknowledged the worker’s distress arising from the events in question but did not consider that this warranted compensation. She said the two parties should move on.