FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : PETER MARK (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY FANNING & KELLY SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Alleged constructive dismissal
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker's case is as follows: In late October, 2000, following an interview, she began to work in the Company's Recruitment Centre in Dublin. Her position was that of office assistant. In February, 2000, she received her 3-month appraisal which was very positive, and was told that she would be taking on more responsibility in the human resources (HR) area. She also spoke to the Managing Director about her desire to be more involved in the HR area. She was told that her reception duties would be phased out. As a result, she decided to enrol in a 4-year evening course in HR management.
In early March, 2001, a new Recruitment Manager was appointed to the Centre. In April, 2001, the recruitment Manager told the worker that she was to be placed purely on reception duties. The worker was surprised and upset and felt that this was a demotion. In the circumstances, she felt that she had no option but to resign.
The Company's case is that the worker was appointed as a receptionist and that her resignation was unwarranted.
The worker referred her case to the Labour Court on the 8th of January, 2002, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th of March, 2002. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker had given up a place in college for a career with the Company, as she had been led to believe that she would be working on HR and personnel matters.
2. The Company has acknowledged that she was a very good worker.
3. The worker suffered from depression and low esteem for many months after the incident and has not worked since.
4. The worker was not given a job description or terms and conditions of her employment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was employed as a receptionist. Her duties were primarily involved in dealing with telephone calls and re-directing enquiries. She did take on a number of ad-hoc duties involving personnel assignment but both parties understood that her role was as a receptionist.
2. Following her resignation, one of the managers met with the worker twice to try to get her to change her mind. The Company would have taken all reasonable steps to assist her in pursuing career progression. It did, however, state that she would need to attain the appropriate qualifications before she could be considered for a HR role.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is accepted that the employer did not provide the employee with a written statement of the particulars of her employment as required by the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994. While the Court has no jurisdiction in providing redress under that Act, it was agreed between the parties that this omission could be taken into account in formulating a recommendation on the issues in dispute.
It is clear from the submissions of the parties that the employer rightly recognised that the employee had the capacity to develop her career within the Company, and had encouraged her to acquire additional skills and to take on some additional responsibilities. In directing the claimant to confine herself to reception duties, the manager concerned appears not to have adequately explained that what was intended was an interim arrangement. In those circumstances, the claimant formed the view that the Company had altered it's position in relation to her long term career prospects. In the Court's view, the Company must bear some degree of responsibility for the events which followed.
Having regard to all the circumstances of this case, including the acknowledged infringement of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994, the Court recommends that the claimant be paid compensation in the amount of €2,500 in full and final settlement of all claims against the Company.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
8th April, 2002______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.