A worker dismissed by the Peter McVerry Trust after an overnight shift at a Dublin homeless accommodation facility has challenged her termination before the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC). The case centres on whether she improperly left a duty area to rest because of back pain, and whether the charity acted fairly after a previous warning for absenteeism.
What happened in the Peter McVerry Trust dismissal case?
Olubunmi Soledolu, a former project worker, was dismissed in March 2025 after the charity concluded that she had breached workplace procedures during an overnight shift at Hazel House in Glasnevin, Dublin 11.
The facility provides emergency accommodation for families with children experiencing homelessness. According to evidence presented to the WRC, Soledolu was expected to remain available in the common areas until midnight. The charity said CCTV showed her entering an upstairs staff bedroom at about 10pm and not returning to the floor before the following morning.
Peter McVerry Trust’s solicitor told the hearing that Soledolu had gone to bed more than two hours before she was scheduled to do so, without notifying the on-call manager or obtaining permission. The charity argued that this left another worker responsible for residents and created a serious operational and safety concern.
Worker says she was resting because of back pain
Soledolu gave a different account. She said she had been cleaning throughout the day ahead of an inspection and developed significant back pain towards the end of her 12-hour shift.
She told the tribunal that she asked her colleague whether she could go upstairs to rest. Soledolu maintained that she did not actually go to sleep and remained awake in the office with access to a phone.
Her evidence was that the residents were asleep, her colleague was monitoring the CCTV system and there did not appear to be an immediate vulnerability or emergency. She also said she believed contacting the charity’s on-call manager would not have resulted in replacement cover before the shift ended.
“I didn’t go to bed. I was still awake,” Soledolu said in evidence, according to the hearing account.
Charity says cover could have been arranged
Michael Nkeng, the Peter McVerry Trust’s head of services for north Dublin, told the WRC that cover could have been arranged within approximately 20 minutes if Soledolu had followed the correct procedure.
He said her decision meant that her colleague was left working in a vulnerable position. The charity also argued that Soledolu had failed to demonstrate sufficient learning from an earlier disciplinary sanction.
Nkeng was one of two managers involved in the decision-making process. He said Soledolu had previously received a final written warning and that her failure to recognise the seriousness of the latest incident was a significant factor in the dismissal.
Dispute over the overnight safety check
The hearing also examined an 11.30pm health and safety check that staff were expected to complete. The charity said the check had not taken place, even though Soledolu’s signature appeared in the relevant log.
Soledolu disputed responsibility for the entry. She said her colleague had been assigning duties that evening and had not instructed her to carry out the check. She further alleged that her signature had been added to the log without her permission.
The other employee received a final written warning in connection with the incident, the charity’s solicitor said.
Previous warning was still active
A major issue in the case is the earlier warning on Soledolu’s personnel file. The charity said she received a 12-month final written warning on January 30th, 2024, after a finding that she had been absent from a shift for five hours in November 2023.
That warning had not expired when the January 2025 incident occurred. The charity argued that the active warning meant the latest alleged breach had to be assessed in the context of repeated disciplinary concerns.
Soledolu said she did not agree with the earlier findings and was uncertain whether she had attempted to appeal the warning.
- The worker was dismissed in March 2025.
- The dispute concerns an overnight shift at Hazel House in Glasnevin.
- She says she went upstairs to rest because of back pain and remained awake.
- The charity says she left the duty area without permission and failed to follow cover procedures.
- A previous final written warning remained active on her employment record.
What happens next in the case?
Adjudicator Monica Brennan adjourned the matter. Soledolu must provide a written submission detailing her efforts to find new employment since being dismissed.
That information may be relevant to any assessment of financial loss if the WRC finds that the dismissal was unfair. The adjournment does not represent a final decision on whether the charity acted lawfully or whether Soledolu’s complaint will succeed.
The case remains developing. A determination may address the fairness of the disciplinary process, the significance of the previous warning, the alleged failure to complete the safety check and whether dismissal was a proportionate response.
Why the case matters
The dispute highlights the importance of clear procedures in residential and emergency accommodation services, where staff must balance welfare concerns, fatigue, illness and continuous supervision responsibilities.
It also illustrates the potential consequences when employees leave a designated duty area during an overnight shift without formally notifying management. At the same time, employers must consider whether an employee’s health complaint was handled appropriately and whether disciplinary decisions were based on a fair investigation.
For workers, the case underlines the importance of reporting illness or injury through the required channels, requesting cover and keeping a clear record of any instructions received during a shift. For employers, it shows why staffing protocols, incident logs and disciplinary procedures need to be understood and consistently applied.
Frequently asked questions
Was a final decision made?
No. The WRC adjourned the hearing while awaiting a written submission from Soledolu about her efforts to find work after dismissal.
Why was the worker dismissed?
The charity said she left the common area of the accommodation facility more than two hours early during an overnight shift without permission, while a safety check was also not completed.
What is the worker’s response?
Soledolu says she went upstairs because of back pain, remained awake and had access to a phone. She also disputes responsibility for the safety-check log.
Where was the incident alleged to have occurred?
The incident took place at Hazel House in Glasnevin, Dublin 11, an emergency accommodation hub for families with children experiencing homelessness.
Conclusion
This Breaking News case before the WRC turns on competing accounts of an overnight shift, workplace safety responsibilities and the effect of a previous disciplinary warning. No ruling has yet been issued. The next stage will depend on the complainant’s written evidence about seeking work after her dismissal, followed by the adjudicator’s assessment of the full employment dispute.
