Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91172 Case Number: LCR13313 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: F.A.S. - and - A WORKER |
Claim by a worker that she was constructively dismissed.
Recommendation:
5. Given all of the circumstances of the case and particularly
the fact that the worker concerned was temporary and that she was
offered and refused further temporary employment the Court does
not consider that the complainant was constructively dismissed.
The Court notwithstanding the above takes the view that management
could have dealt with the situation with greater tact and
sensitivity.
In the light of the quality of the work carried out by the
complainant and with a view to allaying any fears she may have
regarding references being given by F.A.S. to prospective
employers the Court considers she should be given a suitable
reference.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91172 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13313
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 T0 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
PARTIES: F.A.S.
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by a worker that she was constructively dismissed.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker took up a temporary appointment as a clerk typist
in the F.A.S. Training Centre in Finglas on 4th June, 1990. She
claims that while she liked the work she was victimised by some
staff who made her working conditions very difficult. In or about
July, 1990 she brought her anxiety to the attention of a member of
management and offered to resign. The manager concerned asked her
not to resign and to continue working, which she did. On 7th
September, 1990 the worker had a meeting with the same manager
where her attendance on a training course in head office on
Monday, 10th September, 1990 was discussed. The manager also
informed the worker of a complaint about her of a personal nature
which he had received from some staff members about her (details
supplied to the Court). The worker rejected the complaint and
claims that the manager indicated that he concurred with the
complaint. The worker did not report for work on Monday the 10th
September, 1990 and did not attend the training course. The
Company claims that the worker's husband phoned the manager of the
training centre on the evening of 7th September, 1990 and advised
him that the worker had resigned. The worker claims her working
conditions were made so difficult that she felt obliged to leave
and was therefore constructively dismissed. On 7th November, 1990
the worker had a meeting with the manager of the training centre
at which she requested an apology from the manager concerned,
compensation for loss of earnings for 9 weeks, and re-instatement
as a clerk typist. The manager rejected her requests for an
apology and compensation, and offered her a period of 6 weeks
temporary employment which she refused. The worker referred the
matter to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. The hearing took place on 19th May, 1991.
Prior to the hearing the worker agreed to be bound by the Court's
Recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was not available for full-time employment
outside the home until 1988. She then actively sought
employment and after some training courses secured a position
with F.A.S.. She was very happy with the content of her work
which F.A.S. found very satisfactory. However some of the
staff victimised her and made her working conditions very
difficult. She brought this matter to the attention of a
member of management and was so upset that she offered to
resign. The manager concerned asked her not to resign and
indicated that he would make enquiries into the matter. The
worker did not resign as she felt she had the backing and
support of the manager.
2. With the support of the manager concerned the worker felt
she could handle the difficulties presented. However, on 7th
September, 1990 the manager informed her of a complaint made
against her which he endorsed. When the manager agreed with
the complaint the worker felt her position was untenable. She
could not continue to work in such a hostile environment
without the backing of management. She felt degraded and had
no option but to leave. She was therefore constructively
dismissed.
3. The worker's return to work has been destroyed and she has
been unable to secure employment since September, 1990. She
has lost her self-confidence and is unsure of what references
the Company may be giving to prospective employers. The
unsubstantiated complaint made against her should be retracted
and she should be compensated her loss of earnings. She
should be compensated for her loss of the chance of a very
good permanent position with F.A.S..
F.A.S.'S ARGUMENTS
4. 1. A number of weeks after the worker commenced employment a
complaint against her was made by a number of staff to a
member of management. In July, 1990 the worker complained to
the manager concerned that she was being victimised by some
staff and she offered to resign. The manager concerned
discouraged her from doing so. On 7th September, 1990 the
manager concerned had a private meeting with the worker. The
main purpose of the meeting was to discuss the arrangements
for the worker's attendance on a training course in F.A.S.
head office. The manager also took the opportunity to broach
the issue of the complaint made against the worker. The
worker rejected the complaint made against her. The manager
asked the worker to consider what he had said and possibly to
seek advice from friends.
2. When the meeting of 7th September, 1990 ended the Company
considered that the worker was still a temporary employee and
would be going on a training scheme on Monday the 10th
September, 1990. However on the evening of 7th September,
1990 the worker's husband telephoned the training centre
manager at home to advise him that the worker had resigned.
The worker did not present herself for work at the training
centre anymore and did not attend the training course. It was
not until late September, 1990 that F.A.S. was made aware that
the worker was taking issue with it. The manager of the
training centre agreed to meet the worker in November, 1990
and rejected three demands made by her. The manager offered
her a period of further temporary employment which she
rejected.
3. The worker concerned was not dismissed, she resigned.
F.A.S. was happy with her work and did not force her to leave.
After she left, she was offered temporary re-employment which
she refused. F.A.S. does not accept the worker's claim that
she was constructively dismissed.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Given all of the circumstances of the case and particularly
the fact that the worker concerned was temporary and that she was
offered and refused further temporary employment the Court does
not consider that the complainant was constructively dismissed.
The Court notwithstanding the above takes the view that management
could have dealt with the situation with greater tact and
sensitivity.
In the light of the quality of the work carried out by the
complainant and with a view to allaying any fears she may have
regarding references being given by F.A.S. to prospective
employers the Court considers she should be given a suitable
reference.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_______________________
18th June, 1991. Deputy Chairman
A.S./J.C.