Peter McVerry Trust Faces Unfair Dismissal Claim at WRC

A former project worker at the Peter McVerry Trust has brought a statutory claim for unfair dismissal against the homeless charity before the Workplace Relations Commission. Olubunmi Soledolu was discharged from her position in March 2025 following an internal inquiry into an incident where management determined she had retired to bed more than two hours prior to the conclusion of her designated duties. The hearing in Dublin heard contrasting accounts regarding the circumstances of her shift at Hazel House in Glasnevin, an emergency accommodation facility catering to families and children experiencing homelessness. At the centre of the dispute is whether the charity acted within the bounds of natural justice and procedural fairness when dismissing an employee who was already subject to an active final written warning.

Disputed Overnight Shift at Hazel House

The respondent charity told the adjudication hearing that Ms Soledolu was contracted to oversee common areas and ensure facility security until midnight during an intensive twelve-hour overnight assignment. Closed-circuit television records examined by management revealed that the complainant was last observed in public sectors of the property at approximately 10:00pm, after which she did not reappear until the subsequent morning. Legal representatives for the Peter McVerry Trust submitted that the worker had effectively abandoned her post without seeking authorisation from management or contacting the designated on-call coordinator. It was argued that departing her station early constituted a serious operational lapse that compromised safety within the residential setting.

Ms Soledolu contested the employer's interpretation of events, asserting that severe physical discomfort had severely compromised her ability to stand for the remainder of the evening. She explained to the tribunal that she had spent preceding hours performing heavy manual cleaning tasks in preparation for a scheduled premises inspection, which precipitated acute back pain. She maintained that she had merely gone upstairs to an office environment to rest while remaining awake, alert, and accessible via the internal telephone network. She further highlighted that her shift colleague had assented to the arrangement, believing at the time that informal local cover was sufficient to ensure residential welfare.

Safety Verification and Document Inconsistencies

The workplace investigation widened into broader compliance concerns when internal auditors discovered that a mandatory 11:30pm health and safety inspection had not been executed, despite a recorded entry in the shift register. A verification signature attributed to Ms Soledolu appeared on the documentation, an anomaly she forcefully addressed during the tribunal proceedings. She stated under examination that she had not completed the record herself and alleged that her co-worker had forged the signature on the safety checklist. The disciplinary process subsequently sanctioned the second staff member with a final written warning for their involvement, whereas Ms Soledolu faced summary termination due to cumulative conduct issues.

Michael Nkeng, head of services for north Dublin at the charity, delivered sworn evidence concerning the broader operational context and the non-negotiable nature of hostel security standards. Mr Nkeng informed Adjudication Officer Monica Brennan that comprehensive contingency systems exist to support frontline personnel, noting that replacement cover could have arrived at Hazel House within twenty minutes had management been informed of her physical incapacity. He stressed that leaving a colleague alone without supervisory notification placed the remaining staff member in a compromised and vulnerable operational position, thereby breaching fundamental organisational safeguards.

Cumulative Misconduct and Live Sanctions

A critical consideration in the charity's decision to dismiss was the presence of a live disciplinary sanction already on Ms Soledolu's employment file. The tribunal was told that a twelve-month final written warning had been formally handed down on 30 January 2024, stemming from an unauthorised absence of five hours during a scheduled shift in November 2023. That disciplinary sanction was never challenged through internal grievance or appeal mechanisms and remained active when the March 2025 decision was reached. Management concluded that the employee had exhibited an absence of learning from prior formal interventions, rendering continuing employment untenable under established operational frameworks.

Under the statutory framework of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2015, the burden rests upon an employer to demonstrate that a dismissal was substantively justified and fell within a range of reasonable responses open to an enterprise of comparable size and administrative resources. In cases involving live formal warnings, the Workplace Relations Commission routinely assesses whether progressive disciplinary mechanisms were applied fairly and whether mitigating personal circumstances, such as acute health episodes, were adequately addressed prior to the imposition of capital employment penalties.

Adjournment and Mitigation of Financial Loss

Before concluding the oral hearing, the adjudication officer raised the statutory question of financial mitigation, which forms an essential element of any potential compensatory award under Irish employment jurisprudence. Adjudication Officer Monica Brennan noted that while substantive arguments regarding the dismissal were largely concluded, the complainant had yet to substantiate her active efforts to secure alternative employment since March 2025. Claimants seeking monetary redress before the commission are legally obligated to prove that reasonable steps were undertaken to minimise their ongoing economic loss following dismissal.

The proceedings were adjourned to allow Ms Soledolu time to draft and deliver comprehensive written submissions detailing her recent job applications and ongoing employment search. The Peter McVerry Trust will be afforded the opportunity to respond to the supplementary documentation prior to the closure of the adjudicative process. A formal written determination balancing the charity's safeguarding responsibilities against the worker's procedural entitlements will be delivered by the Workplace Relations Commission in due course.