EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM OF: CASE NO.
Michelle Devereux UD970/2013
-claimant
against
Kingswood Computing Limited
-respondent
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms F. Crawford B.L.
Members: Mr M. Noone
Mr D. Thomas
heard this claim at Dublin on 28th November 2014
Representation:
_______________
Claimant: Mr. Dominic Wilkinson B.L. instructed by,
Kevin Tunney Solicitors, Millennium House, Main Street, Tallaght, Dublin 24
Respondent: Mr. Brian Dolan, Peninsula Business Services (Ireland) Ltd., Unit 3, Block S, East Point Business Park, Dublin 3
This is a case of Constructive Dismissal.
Summary of Evidence
The respondent is a software company. It is operated by the owner GL; his daughter and three other employees also work with the claimant. In 2002 the claimant was employed in technical support for the software package the respondent provided to the agricultural sector. The claimant took calls, trained customers and compiled all the documentation required.
GL’s daughter joined the respondent in 2010. Prior to this the working environment could not be considered normal but the claimant was able to ‘deal with it.’ The owner GL and his daughter had a very volatile relationship in the workplace. On a daily basis they would aggressively argue, shout and curse at each other. As the claimant’s desk was between GL and his daughter’s desk, the constant arguments made the claimant very uncomfortable and it started to affect her ability to do her job and her well being. The claimant told GL on a number of occasions how she felt about the situation and the impact it was having on her and her ability to do her job. GL instructed the claimant to get a headset for calls so she could block out the sounds around her. It was also suggested by another employee that the claimant move office but GL refused. There was no grievance or disciplinary process in place and the claimant was never asked to put any complaints in writing.
The claimant detailed incidents where GL’s daughter punched the desk and threw an office chair. On one occasion GL’s daughter asked GL not to hit her so he dragged her to the conference room. The claimant reported an incident to GL where his daughter would not take a call even though she was being trained to do so; GL ‘scolded’ his daughter as a result. The claimant detailed numerous incidents illustrating an environment where ‘everything was a battle.’
In November 2012 the claimant again brought her concerns to GL and he suggested putting up an additional partition between the desks as a solution. The claimant told GL that the constant arguing was affecting her ‘life and work.’
In the first week of January 2013 the claimant, GL’s daughter and another employee were called to a meeting and asked by GL if anyone had any concerns. The claimant said that the aggression, arguing and GL’s daughter’s unwillingness to participate in the training were concerns. GL responded by telling the claimant (while all were present) that there had been two customer complaints against her. The claimant asked but GL refused to tell her any details of the complaints.
On the 29th of January GL and his daughter were arguing as normal. GL told the claimant that she had to take an important call at 3pm. During the call GL interrupted three times. The 3rd time GL asked the claimant to put the customer on hold and asked her into the conference room. GL then slammed the conference room door while shouting and cursing at the claimant. GL was upset believing that as the claimant had apologised to the customer, he as now liable for any problems as she admitted fault. The claimant said ‘I’m done’ and tried to open the door and leave the room. GL kicked the door closed, blocked and held the door preventing the claimant from leaving the room. The office was dark as it was evening and there was only one exit out of the room; the claimant was scared and didn’t know what as going to happen to her. Eventually he let her out and said get your stuff and leave. The claimant left the office and never returned.
The claimant went to her GP the next day and was put on certified sick leave; she felt ‘broken.’ The respondent wrote to the claimant despite being asked not to correspond directly with her. The claimant resigned as of the 30th of April 2013.
The respondent accepts there was no grievance or disciplinary procedure in place and no record of any of the meetings held. GL accepts that he told the claimant that there was a customer who refused to deal with her in direct retaliation for the claimant’s complaint against his daughter.
GL accepts that on the 29th of January he shouted at the claimant, held the door of the conference room closed and blocked it preventing her from leaving the room. GL disputes that he asked the claimant to leave and he did initially want the claimant to return to work. GL accepts that the workplace was volatile. It was normal practise to raise concerns verbally and GL accepts that the claimant did raise her concerns on numerous occasions.
GL’s daughter disputes ever picking up a chair and throwing it. She admits to probably kicking a chair but not in the vicinity of the claimant. She admits to having arguments with GL and the claimant.
Determination
It is the belief of the Tribunal that violence in the workplace is unacceptable. The respondent accepts that he held and blocked the conference room door preventing the claimant from leaving the room. The claimant could not be expected to return to the workplace after that incident. The claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007 succeeds and the claimant is awarded €26,445.00.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)