EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM OF: CASE NO.
Sylwia Schonfeld UD1013/2013
against
West Wood Club Clontarf Limited
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr J. Revington S.C.
Members: Ms A. Gaule
Mr M. O'Reilly
heard this claim at Dublin on 2 October, 21 November and 1 December 2014
Representation:
Claimant: Mr. Liam Bell B.L. instructed by
Mr Stephen Woods, Michael Finucane Solicitors, 4th Floor, Kreston House, Arran Court, Arran Quay, Dublin 7
Respondent: Mr. Stephen O’Sullivan B.L. instructed by
Peter Duff & Co., Solicitors, 34 Main Street, Blackrock, Co Dublin
Claimant’s Case
The claim before the Tribunal was one of constructive dismissal. The claimant commenced her
employment with the respondent company in January 2008 and she was promoted twice during the course of her employment. Latterly, the claimant was promoted to the position of manager of the respondent’s fitzone. As part of her management role the claimant organised holiday camps for children and she was responsible for the health and safety of the children as well as any human resources issues within the department.
The claimant commenced a period of maternity leave in May 2010. In September 2010 a new general manager commenced employment with the respondent. Following a conversation with the new general manager about the situation in the fitzone department the claimant decided that she would attend work once a week during the remainder of her maternity leave in order to get the department working properly again and to compile financial reports etcetera.
During her maternity leave the claimant also undertook a beautician’s qualification as she was also responsible for the spa department as part of her role. By the time the claimant returned to work from maternity leave she was a fully qualified beautician. The claimant was told that on return from maternity leave that her hours would change dramatically. The claimant told the general manager that she could not work late all of the time due to her young child. However, the claimant’s hours were cut and she was expected to carry out her full-time position in part-time hours.
On her return to work problems arose with the new general manager. The claimant was removed from the position that she was to perform and was told that the position of fitzone manager no longer existed. The claimant was asked to carry out a position in the childcare department instead which was the second largest department. The general manager envisioned the claimant performing the role of both fitzone and childcare manager. Working with the general manager was unpleasant and the claimant outlined that there were three main issues: the manner of the general manager, the language used against the claimant and the reasonableness or otherwise of the general manager. The claimant outlined in evidence that the general manager constantly screamed at her while gesticulating with her hands in front of the claimant’s face, as well as raising her voice and using foul language. The claimant knew the manager was stressed but this did not give her the right to take out her frustration on the staff, in particular the claimant.
The claimant stated that when she undertook the position of childcare manager the department was in a very bad state. In or around July 2011 a document was required for an ongoing court case and the claimant provided this document to the general manager in sight of other staff. Later the general manager stated she had not received the document but when the claimant viewed the file on this matter with the operations manager the only document contained in the file was the one which the claimant had provided. The general manager had screamed and gesticulated at the claimant about this document to the point that the claimant began to hyperventilate.
On a number of occasions the claimant approached the general manager and asked her to work with her on a “proper level” however the general manager told the claimant that she could not work with her as she was a “f***ing drama queen.” The claimant stated that there were constant problems in the childcare department but the general manager did not listen to the claimant nor was she allowed to explain her difficulties. The claimant also outlined to the Tribunal about a number of staffing issues that arose for which the general manager blamed the claimant and/or became irate with her.
The claimant began to seek alternative employment but there were not many positions available in the industry. Eventually she made the decision, despite this, to resign from her employment. The claimant’s confidence was eroded and she found that she was a “nobody” in the company as even though she managed her department well, there was no respect for her as she was screamed at by the general manager in front of her staff. Matters came to a head in January 2013 when a matter arose regarding an employee. On this occasion when the general manager took out her anger on the claimant, the claimant shouted back at the general manger as she “could not take it anymore.” The claimant attended her doctor on two occasions and was advised to depart the employment. The claimant explained that she did not utilise the grievance procedure as the human resources position had not been filled since the position was vacated. In essence therefore the claimant would have had to complain to the general manger. The owner was possibly the only senior person above the general manager and the claimant had only seen him once on the premises.
A switch board operator who was familiar with the interaction between the claimant and her supervisor commented on what she generally observed between them. That supervisor was hostile towards the claimant and at times shouted at her. The claimant was very intimidated by that behaviour. This witness commented that the supervisor often complained about “silly stuff” and that everything was a problem for her. It was the witness’s view that the situation between those two women could have been handled differently. She confirmed that during the relevant time the respondent did not have a dedicated human resource person or section and did not know to whom complaints should be brought to. The supervisor/general manager and area manager were friends.
Respondent’s Case
The general manager and claimant’s supervisor described her approach to staff as firm and direct. Due to the shift pattern of various employees this manager used emails a lot to communicate with them. She commented that some of the language and tone of those emails to the claimant were written while she was frustrated and annoyed at the way certain matters were been handled. This witness accepted that, in hindsight, some of the language used was inappropriate. However, she stated that it was incorrect and indeed not possible for her to shout and scream at the claimant. The witness added that the reported hyperventilation incident did not happen as described.
This witness cited examples of instances where the actions and omissions on the claimant’s part merited criticism. These included the circumstances that led to the dismissal of another employee and the mismanagement of customers. She certainly did not have a dysfunctional relationship with claimant and her door was always open for employees. To her knowledge the claimant never invoked a grievance procedure. This manager did not realise that the claimant had a grievance either against her or the respondent. Besides, the claimant was familiar with both the area general manager and the managing director.
An operations’ manager who observed the claimant and general manager working together told the Tribunal that he never saw that manager being aggressive towards the claimant. There were disagreements and conflicts between them but that did not include rudeness, bad language or shouting. At times the general manager was frustrated with the claimant’s performance.
The area manager stated in evidence he had never received reports from neither the claimant nor the general manger regarding their working relationship.
Determination
There is little doubt that the working relationship between the claimant and the general manager was difficult and fractious. In plain language they rubbed each other up the wrong way and it showed in their interactions. The actions and behaviour of this manager contributed significantly to the decision of the claimant to resign from the respondent. Some of the emails sent by that manager to the claimant were aggressive and offensive. That style of communication was compounded by some of her verbal airings with her. These developments together with a lack of a clear managerial structure led to the claimant’s resignation.
The Tribunal finds that this resignation was involuntary and constituted a constructive dismissal as defined under the legislation. Accordingly, the claim under the Unfair Dismissal Acts, 1977 to 2007 succeeds and the claimant is awarded €12,500.00 as compensation under those Acts.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)
EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM OF: CASE NO.
Sylwia Schonfeld UD1013/2013
against
West Wood Club Clontarf Limited
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr J. Revington S.C.
Members: Ms A. Gaule
Mr M. O'Reilly
heard this claim at Dublin on 2 October, 21 November and 1 December 2014
Representation:
Claimant: Mr. Liam Bell B.L. instructed by
Mr Stephen Woods, Michael Finucane Solicitors, 4th Floor, Kreston House, Arran Court, Arran Quay, Dublin 7
Respondent: Mr. Stephen O’Sullivan B.L. instructed by
Peter Duff & Co., Solicitors, 34 Main Street, Blackrock, Co Dublin
Claimant’s Case
The claim before the Tribunal was one of constructive dismissal. The claimant commenced her
employment with the respondent company in January 2008 and she was promoted twice during the course of her employment. Latterly, the claimant was promoted to the position of manager of the respondent’s fitzone. As part of her management role the claimant organised holiday camps for children and she was responsible for the health and safety of the children as well as any human resources issues within the department.
The claimant commenced a period of maternity leave in May 2010. In September 2010 a new general manager commenced employment with the respondent. Following a conversation with the new general manager about the situation in the fitzone department the claimant decided that she would attend work once a week during the remainder of her maternity leave in order to get the department working properly again and to compile financial reports etcetera.
During her maternity leave the claimant also undertook a beautician’s qualification as she was also responsible for the spa department as part of her role. By the time the claimant returned to work from maternity leave she was a fully qualified beautician. The claimant was told that on return from maternity leave that her hours would change dramatically. The claimant told the general manager that she could not work late all of the time due to her young child. However, the claimant’s hours were cut and she was expected to carry out her full-time position in part-time hours.
On her return to work problems arose with the new general manager. The claimant was removed from the position that she was to perform and was told that the position of fitzone manager no longer existed. The claimant was asked to carry out a position in the childcare department instead which was the second largest department. The general manager envisioned the claimant performing the role of both fitzone and childcare manager. Working with the general manager was unpleasant and the claimant outlined that there were three main issues: the manner of the general manager, the language used against the claimant and the reasonableness or otherwise of the general manager. The claimant outlined in evidence that the general manager constantly screamed at her while gesticulating with her hands in front of the claimant’s face, as well as raising her voice and using foul language. The claimant knew the manager was stressed but this did not give her the right to take out her frustration on the staff, in particular the claimant.
The claimant stated that when she undertook the position of childcare manager the department was in a very bad state. In or around July 2011 a document was required for an ongoing court case and the claimant provided this document to the general manager in sight of other staff. Later the general manager stated she had not received the document but when the claimant viewed the file on this matter with the operations manager the only document contained in the file was the one which the claimant had provided. The general manager had screamed and gesticulated at the claimant about this document to the point that the claimant began to hyperventilate.
On a number of occasions the claimant approached the general manager and asked her to work with her on a “proper level” however the general manager told the claimant that she could not work with her as she was a “f***ing drama queen.” The claimant stated that there were constant problems in the childcare department but the general manager did not listen to the claimant nor was she allowed to explain her difficulties. The claimant also outlined to the Tribunal about a number of staffing issues that arose for which the general manager blamed the claimant and/or became irate with her.
The claimant began to seek alternative employment but there were not many positions available in the industry. Eventually she made the decision, despite this, to resign from her employment. The claimant’s confidence was eroded and she found that she was a “nobody” in the company as even though she managed her department well, there was no respect for her as she was screamed at by the general manager in front of her staff. Matters came to a head in January 2013 when a matter arose regarding an employee. On this occasion when the general manager took out her anger on the claimant, the claimant shouted back at the general manger as she “could not take it anymore.” The claimant attended her doctor on two occasions and was advised to depart the employment. The claimant explained that she did not utilise the grievance procedure as the human resources position had not been filled since the position was vacated. In essence therefore the claimant would have had to complain to the general manger. The owner was possibly the only senior person above the general manager and the claimant had only seen him once on the premises.
A switch board operator who was familiar with the interaction between the claimant and her supervisor commented on what she generally observed between them. That supervisor was hostile towards the claimant and at times shouted at her. The claimant was very intimidated by that behaviour. This witness commented that the supervisor often complained about “silly stuff” and that everything was a problem for her. It was the witness’s view that the situation between those two women could have been handled differently. She confirmed that during the relevant time the respondent did not have a dedicated human resource person or section and did not know to whom complaints should be brought to. The supervisor/general manager and area manager were friends.
Respondent’s Case
The general manager and claimant’s supervisor described her approach to staff as firm and direct. Due to the shift pattern of various employees this manager used emails a lot to communicate with them. She commented that some of the language and tone of those emails to the claimant were written while she was frustrated and annoyed at the way certain matters were been handled. This witness accepted that, in hindsight, some of the language used was inappropriate. However, she stated that it was incorrect and indeed not possible for her to shout and scream at the claimant. The witness added that the reported hyperventilation incident did not happen as described.
This witness cited examples of instances where the actions and omissions on the claimant’s part merited criticism. These included the circumstances that led to the dismissal of another employee and the mismanagement of customers. She certainly did not have a dysfunctional relationship with claimant and her door was always open for employees. To her knowledge the claimant never invoked a grievance procedure. This manager did not realise that the claimant had a grievance either against her or the respondent. Besides, the claimant was familiar with both the area general manager and the managing director.
An operations’ manager who observed the claimant and general manager working together told the Tribunal that he never saw that manager being aggressive towards the claimant. There were disagreements and conflicts between them but that did not include rudeness, bad language or shouting. At times the general manager was frustrated with the claimant’s performance.
The area manager stated in evidence he had never received reports from neither the claimant nor the general manger regarding their working relationship.
Determination
There is little doubt that the working relationship between the claimant and the general manager was difficult and fractious. In plain language they rubbed each other up the wrong way and it showed in their interactions. The actions and behaviour of this manager contributed significantly to the decision of the claimant to resign from the respondent. Some of the emails sent by that manager to the claimant were aggressive and offensive. That style of communication was compounded by some of her verbal airings with her. These developments together with a lack of a clear managerial structure led to the claimant’s resignation.
The Tribunal finds that this resignation was involuntary and constituted a constructive dismissal as defined under the legislation. Accordingly, the claim under the Unfair Dismissal Acts, 1977 to 2007 succeeds and the claimant is awarded €12,500.00 as compensation under those Acts.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)