The nephew of a dementia patient who said her former live-in carer walked off the job in the middle of the night and “ghosted” the family have been ordered to pay her over €1,600 after a ruling that he unlawfully withheld her final pay.
The worker, Catarina Cardoso, secured the award under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 against Ross Jenkins, who had employed her to care for his aunt at her home in Galway starting in July 2024.
Mr Jenkins told the Workplace Relations Commission his elderly aunt suffered from advanced dementia, required “pretty severe antipsychotics”, and had been alone for 24 hours after Ms Cardoso quit on 23 August 2024.
Ms Cardoso said she was “ashamed” that she “felt the need to run” when she left the employment, but said she was suffering from anxiety when she was left alone with the patient and that she had come to the point of “carer burnout”.
She said she got a payslip detailing all of her working hours in August 2024. “I have yet to see that pay or an explanation on why I don’t have it,” she told a WRC hearing in March this year.
Cross-examining his former employee, Mr Jenkins said: “One of the biggest questions I had was: why were we ghosted?”
“Immediately after Catarina gave in her notice — as she calls it, from the family’s perspective, we were caught completely off notice – she left at 9pm at night, left a vulnerable adult who has advanced dementia,” he said. “Why did you stop communication immediately after leaving?” he asked.
“I believe at the time I was very anxious. I would call it carer burnout. I couldn’t do it any more, and I was extremely ashamed. I failed to face you because I knew what I was doing,” Ms Cardoso replied.
Ms Cardoso told the tribunal that she informed the family she wanted to leave four days before she went. The family’s position was that she had agreed to stay on until they found a new carer, the tribunal heard.
“I had to leave, I couldn’t continue doing that any more. I was afraid, because I did leave a vulnerable adult, I did,” Ms Cardosa said.
“I didn’t get the help that I wanted, and I felt like I couldn’t do it any more. I felt the need to run, I am ashamed of that,” Ms Cardosa said.
In his own direct evidence, Mr Jenkins said his aunt had “pretty advanced dementia” and the fact that Ms Cardosa left at such short notice “put a vulnerable adult at risk”.
“She’s at risk she’ll leave the house and go look for her husband,” he explained, adding that the family had to “scramble to get emergency assistance”.
“She ceased to exist once she left… I tried calling, emailing, she’d dropped off the face of the planet. When we understood that she’d not been giving medication to a vulnerable adult, we weren’t exactly keen on paying someone for doing that,” Mr Jenkins added.
Margaret Jenkins, Mr Jenkins’ sister, said there had been “nearly a full week of no medication being distributed in the evening”. After Ms Cardosa left the employment, her aunt had been “left alone for nearly 24 hours”, she added.
Ms Cardosa said she was “very strict with the medicine” and put it to the witness that a blister pack of tablets she had seen was a new packet.
“No, it is not possible, all of those blister packs are dated, and the level of anxiety Ann was displaying would probably lead to the conclusion that she wasn’t receiving her medication,” she said.
In a closing submission, Ms Cardosa said: “I am unsatisfied with my own behaviour regarding this situation. I could have dealt with it in a different way. Regarding the medication, I have nothing else to say except that I did not fail to give the medication.
“All I want to see is a decision regarding the pay that was not issued, that’s the only thing,” she said.
“We didn’t take her statement as notice when she spoke about leaving immediately. We had a period of time to replace her agreed upon. I feel like she broke that agreement,” he said.
“When this happened, we had to find extra money, so there’s a real cost to the family for Caterina’s actions. I would like that taken into consideration in your decision,” Mr Jenkins added.
Adjudicator Monica Brennan wrote in her decision that the family seemed to be relying on Ms Cardosa’s actions as a basis for withholding her pay.
However, there was no contract clause providing for pay deductions, nor any evidence the employer had written to Ms Cardosa with “particulars of the act or omission” in advance of making the deduction from her wages as the law required.
“I find that the deduction from the properly payable wages is unlawful and the complaint is therefore well-founded,” she concluded.
Ms Brennan directed the family to pay Ms Cardosa the sum of €1,650.78 within six weeks of her decision.
