UD1305/2012

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CLAIM OF:                                                                                                  CASE NO.

                                                                                                                        UD1305/12    

Kim Cuthbert   -  claimant                                                    

against

Carlton Kinsale Hotel Limited (In receivership)        -           respondent

Carlton Kinsale Hotel Limited (In receivership), c/o Kieran Wallace, Receiver,

                                                                                                - respondent

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:   Mr. L. O Catháin

Members:     Mr. D. Hegarty

                    Mr. D. McEvoy

heard this claim in Cork on 21st November 2013 and 4^th March 2014.

Representation:

Claimant:         Mr. Brendan O’Sullivan, O’Donnell Breen-Walsh O’Donoghue, Solicitors,

Trinity House, 8 Georges Quay, Cork

                       On 21^st November 2013

                        Ms Michele Nunan, O’Donnell Breen-Walsh O’Donoghue, Solicitors,

Trinity House, 8 Georges Quay, Cork

On 4^th March 2014.

Respondent:    Mr. Alan Haugh BL, instructed by A & L Goodbody, Solicitors,

I.F.S.C., North Wall Quay, Dublin 1

The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-

As this being a case of constructive dismissal it fell to the claimant to give evidence first.

Claimant’s Case:

The respondent is a hotel located in the south of Ireland.   The claimant commenced working in the hotel as a receptionist on 12^th June 2010 in a part time capacity. On 12^th July 2010 she secured a full time role as a management trainee. She held this position until 30^th March 2011. On 11^th June 2011 she secured an assistant accommodation manager role on a full time basis. She was required to be flexible in this position.

The claimant suffered an injury and was certified unfit for work for a three month period. Upon her return to work in mid August 2011 JS told her that her role had been filled while she was absent on sick leave. The claimant was willing to work in another position in the hotel and after two weeks BK, the new General Manager offered her reception duty work which the claimant accepted.

BK was replaced in her role by AMK. In the beginning the claimant got on well with AMK but after some time the claimant found AMK difficult to work with. In November 2011 there was an agreement that the claimant would work in sales and marketing and would cover reception duties during break times. She embraced this role. While she enjoyed this new role it was very stressful. Part of this new role entailed looking after advertising and sales meetings. She also participated in an apprenticeship programme in sales and marketing.

From December 2011 onwards the claimant felt bullied by AMK. The claimant found her to be manipulative, rude and a bully. She was constantly undermining the claimant. The general atmosphere in the office was awful. The claimant found it very stressful. She was not being given the tools to carry out her tasks and this knocked her confidence. The hotel did not have a HR department. The claimant sought advice from a private consultant.

AS was appointed to the Sales and Marketing Role in January 2012.   The claimant trained her in. She got on very well with AS. After AS’s appointment the claimant had no workstation of her own. She was still being assigned sales and marketing tasks. She could not secure her own work station and was constantly moving from desk to desk to try and get her work done.

Together both the claimant and AS did a sales presentation at a Sales Conference in Ballinasloe on 14 February 2012. At that conference an issue arose that both the sale manager and her executives/sales team had been struggling to get their jobs done due to lack of structure within the hotel departments. The claimant was asked by JOC, Group Sales Manager to meet up with AMK and AS to go through the sales and marketing department. The claimant’s role needed to be clarified and she needed to be working towards targets.

The claimant attended a meeting with AMK on 22^nd February 2012. It was a difficult meeting and she was questioned on tasks she had not completed. The claimant outlined a number of grievances that she had at that meeting. At the conclusion of the meeting the claimant was offered two days work in sales and marketing and three days work on reception. She confirmed she would be happy to accept this offer at the meeting held on 29^th February 2012. She was relieved there was more structure on her role. However, she still felt her role remained undefined.

The claimant again met AMK on 14^th March 2012. On this occasion the claimant brought a witness along with her. AMK insisted that the witness leave this meeting. The claimant was told that she was not following the grievance steps at the meeting. She spoke about the employee handbook.

On 20 March 2012 the claimant emailed AMK with grievances she wished to be addressed and resolved. She had already made AMK aware of these.

On 27^th March 2012 the claimant tendered her resignation. She had lost all confidence in the company being able to address her issues/grievances and these had been expressed in correspondence.

The claimant secured a part time role immediately after her resignation and is now working in the family business.

Respondent’s Case:

MC is Group HR Manager. She provides services to the management of hotels in the Group. She holds monthly meetings with General Managers. She had met the claimant during the claimant’s participation on the apprenticeship programme. The claimant was perceived to be confident in her role with an aptitude for sales.

MC was not aware of any complaints being made about AMK’s management approach. No grievances had been brought to MC’s attention. The General Manager role incorporates HR functions. Any employee encountering difficulties with a HR manager can raise their issues with MK.

While JOC may make recommendations the structure of the hotel is determined by the General Manager.

No grievances raised by the claimant were ever brought to MK’s attention.

Determination:

The Tribunal is satisfied that the evidence presented was sufficient that the claimant was constructively dismissed. The Tribunal felt that the structures and management systems were inadequate at the time in the hotel.

In the circumstances, the Tribunal awards the claimant €20,000.00 under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007.

Sealed with the Seal of the

Employment Appeals Tribunal

This   ________________________

(Sgd.) ________________________

         (CHAIRMAN)