FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SMYTHS CENTRA FOODMARKET - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. A dispute over an alleged grievance.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a worker who was employed by Smyths Centra Supermarket on a temporary part time basis, from 13th April 2004 to cover a period of sick leave. The worker was initially employed to work from 10am. to 3pm. Monday to Friday, but had indicated that she would work additional hours if required.
The roster for weeks commencing 31st May 2004 was incompete, leaving insufficient staff in the shop on Saturday 5th June 2004. The worker in question was asked to work on Saturday 4th June 2004, but was unavailable. This was accepted by management but it was stressed to the worker that she would be needed on Saturday 12th June 2004.
The worker subsequently stated that she was unavailable to work on 12th June 2004 due to other commitments. On Friday 4th June 2004, having allegedly been mistreated and verbally abused by her employer, the worker in question left her position.
On the 3rd August, 2004, the worker referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th October 2004.
The worker agreed to be bound by the recommendation of the Court.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was employed to work Monday to Friday 10am.to 3pm. which was then changed to 10am. to 4pm. at her own request. It was never a condition of employment that she would be required to work Saturdays. She had indicated a willingness to work additional hours if she was available to do so.
2. When the employer was informed of the workers inability to work on Saturday 5th June, 2004, and Saturday 12th June, 2004, he indicated that it was not acceptable and spoke to her in such an inappropriate way that she felt there was no other option but to leave the position immediately.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker had accepted that flexibility was necessary of all staff in relation to rosters prior to commencing employment. She had also indicated that she would be available to work any additional hours requested of her.
2. At no time did the employer use the language alleged by the worker, nor did he verbally abuse any member of staff during his fifteen years as an employer in Trim.
RECOMMENDATION:
The case before the Court concerns a dispute over an alleged grievance between an employer and a worker whereby the worker is of the opinion that she was badly treated by her employer when she informed him that she was unable to work on Saturday 5th June 2004 and 12th June 2004.
The Court has considered the oral and written submissions of both parties. The Court was presented with a total conflict of evidence and an absence of evidence by any witness on either side.
The Court is of the opinion that the employer’s reaction to her non availability for work was over reactive and aggressive.
The Court is also of the view that her abrupt action in leaving her employment of her own accord without making an attempt at processing a grievance, was not acceptable in employment terms.
Having regard to the circumstances in which the claimant's employment came to an end, the Court recommends that a gesture of goodwill payment of €200 should be paid to the claimant by the employer in full and final settlement of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
26th November, 2004______________________
AH/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.