In the latest Media News Ireland report to put workplace procedures under the spotlight, a former Peter McVerry Trust employee is contesting her dismissal after managers alleged she went to bed more than two hours before the end of an overnight shift. The case, now before the Workplace Relations Commission, raises sharp questions about disciplinary process, staff welfare, shift cover and record-keeping in frontline homelessness services.
Olubunmi Soledolu, who worked as a project worker at Hazel House in Glasnevin, Dublin, was dismissed in March 2025. The trust says the decision followed a second disciplinary issue within a 12-month period. Soledolu, however, disputes key elements of the allegation and says she had gone upstairs to rest with back pain, not to sleep through her duties.
Media News Ireland: What the WRC Heard
According to evidence outlined at the hearing, the incident centred on an overnight shift at an emergency accommodation hub for families experiencing homelessness. The charity’s position is that Soledolu should have remained on duty in the common areas until midnight. CCTV evidence, the tribunal heard, last showed her around 10pm, and she was not seen again until the following morning.
Soledolu rejected the suggestion that she simply abandoned her post. She said she had been working through a demanding day of cleaning ahead of an inspection and was suffering from back pain near the end of a 12-hour shift. In her account, she spoke with a colleague and went upstairs to rest while remaining awake and contactable by phone.
Her version was direct: she did not go to bed early, she said, but instead stayed in the upstairs office area and remained reachable if needed.
The Core Dispute: Resting, Sleeping or Breaching Protocol?
The case appears to hinge on whether Soledolu’s actions amounted to a serious breach of procedure or a judgment call made during a physically demanding shift.
The employer’s case
The trust’s legal representative told the tribunal that:
- Soledolu went to the staff bedroom more than two hours early
- She did not notify on-call management
- She did not seek permission or follow the proper process
- Her colleague was left in a vulnerable working position
Managers also argued that if she had raised her health concerns through the correct channel, replacement cover could have been arranged quickly.
The worker’s case
Soledolu’s evidence painted a different picture. She described herself as a committed employee who regularly covered shifts and rarely called in sick. She told the hearing that:
- She had back pain after a long shift
- A co-worker agreed she could go upstairs and rest
- Residents were asleep and the situation appeared calm
- She remained awake and available by phone
She also suggested there was a workplace culture in which calling management late in a shift was not seen as practical because cover would not arrive in time.
Previous Warning Became a Major Factor
One of the most significant details in this Media News case is that Soledolu was already on a final written warning when the January 2025 incident occurred. The warning, issued in January 2024 and still active on her file, related to an earlier finding that she had been absent from shift for five hours in November 2023.
The trust said that warning was never appealed. Soledolu said she did not agree with the earlier finding and was unsure whether she had attempted to challenge it.
For decision-makers inside the organisation, that existing warning appears to have shaped the outcome. A senior manager told the hearing he saw “no learning” from the earlier disciplinary action and considered dismissal justified in those circumstances.
Disputed Safety Check and Forgery Claim
Another contentious issue involved an 11.30pm health and safety check that staff were expected to carry out and log. The trust’s investigation found the check had not been completed, despite Soledolu’s signature appearing in the record.
Soledolu denied responsibility for that entry and made a serious counterclaim: she said her colleague had signed her name and that the signature had been forged. She also said the other worker had been in charge of assigning duties that evening and had not asked her to carry out that check.
The tribunal heard that the co-worker was later given a final written warning in connection with the issue.
For News Ireland readers following employment disputes, this detail may prove especially important because it introduces a separate question about accountability, documentation and internal oversight.
Why This Case Matters Beyond One Dismissal
This is more than a single unfair dismissal complaint. It touches on wider issues that continue to feature in Media Digest coverage of the non-profit and social care sectors:
- Staff fatigue: overnight and extended shifts can create pressure points for frontline workers
- Clear escalation procedures: organisations must ensure employees understand exactly how and when to seek cover
- Disciplinary consistency: final warnings can become decisive in later cases
- Record integrity: disputed logbook entries can complicate internal investigations
- Workplace culture: informal practices may conflict with formal policy
For employers, the hearing is a reminder that process is everything. For workers, it underlines how prior warnings and undocumented decisions on shift can have major consequences.
What Happens Next
The adjudicator has not yet issued a final decision on the unfair dismissal complaint. Instead, the matter was adjourned pending a written submission from Soledolu setting out what efforts she has made to secure new employment since her dismissal.
That step is often relevant in employment cases because it can affect any assessment of financial loss if a complaint succeeds.
From an Agency News Ireland and Corporate News Ireland perspective, the outcome will likely be watched closely by HR professionals, charity governance teams and employment law observers. Cases involving homelessness services are particularly sensitive because they sit at the intersection of worker welfare, safeguarding obligations and public accountability.
Key Takeaway
This Media News Ireland case now turns on competing accounts of what happened during a quiet overnight shift: whether a worker in pain took a brief rest while available for duty, or whether she breached protocol while already on a live final warning. As the WRC process continues, the final ruling may offer an important benchmark on fairness, procedure and workplace standards in Ireland’s care and charity sectors.
