EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CASE NO.
UD468/2015
CLAIM(S) OF:
Anna Liro -claimant
against
Tesco Ireland Limited -respondent
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr N. Russell
Members: Mr. N. Ormond
Mr P. Trehy
heard this claim at Carlow on 1st March 2016 and 14th April 2016
Representation:
Claimant: In person
Respondent: Ms Mairéad Crosby, IBEC, Confederation House, Waterford Business Park, Cork Road, Waterford
Background and summary of evidence:
A Polish translator was provided by the Tribunal for this case.
The respondent is a large multinational grocery chain. The claimant was employed as a general sales assistant in the bakery department in one of the respondent’s stores from October 2009 until her resignation in November 2014. The claim before the Tribunal was one of constructive dismissal therefore it fell to the claimant to make her case. The claimant outlined that as early as two weeks after her commencement date issues began to arise with her line manager.
The claimant outlined in detail and with reference to a large number of documents a number of issues she had working in the bakery department which mainly related to difficulties she had with her line manager (WN) and a colleague (BB) and a grievance she had regarding her band of working hours.
The claimant wrote a letter to WN dated the 30th July 2012 setting out her “total dissatisfaction” with the way she was treated by him in the workplace.
She also wrote a letter of complaint in October to AC, who was the Store Manager in 2012. The claimant set out a number of issues in that letter that she had with a colleague (BB) but mainly she set out allegations against her line manager.
The Store Manager (AC) investigated the claimant’s grievance and recommended that WN receive re-training on the Dignity at Work policy, managing holiday requests and completing the holiday tracker. The claimant was aware that she could appeal the recommendation but did not do so.
During July 2013 the claimant wrote an official complaint letter to the Deputy Manager regarding issues she was having with her colleague BB and her line manager who had recently returned from sick leave.
The claimant outlined in full the difficulties she was having with BB and the manner in which they were rostered for their hours in the bakery. This culminated in a number of meetings during September 2014. In one of those meetings the claimant requested that BB be moved from the bakery department as the issues in work were affecting her. When BB was not transferred the claimant sought to transfer out of the bakery instead. The company agreed to explore moving the claimant to another department. LK gave evidence that she became the claimant’s line manager for a period of time. She stated that there was a conflict of interest between BB and the claimant which became “tit for tat” at times. When the claimant requested to move departments she explained to the claimant that it would take some time to train another member of staff in the bakery department.
The Store Manager (JN) gave evidence that he was appointed manager to the store in October 2014. He held a meeting with the claimant and it was his evidence that he told her to she set out her grievance in writing to him stating dates, times and witnesses and that he would investigate her complaint.
The claimant wrote a letter dated 30th October 2014 to the Personnel Manager outlining an incident that had taken place with the line manager on that date. She also wrote a further letter dated the 31st October 2014 to the Employee Relations Manager for the respondent company in which she outlined a number of matters including specific dates when she alleged she was bullied at work by her then manger WN.
The Store Manager was made aware of the grievance by the Employee Relations Manager. He conducted a further meeting with the claimant on the 14th November 2014. At the meeting the Store Manager reminded the claimant that he had said he would investigate the matter but that he needed further details to do so and that it would take two weeks to complete the investigation.
The claimant tendered her resignation on the 21st November 2014 and she attributed this to the behaviour of BB on the 20th November 2014. It was alleged by the claimant that BB was “shouting, screaming and spitting” at the claimant.
The Store Manager wrote to the claimant on the 10th December 2014 stating that he was unable to accept her resignation given that she had an outstanding grievance and requested that the claimant make an appointment with him for further investigation of the matter.
The claimant responded in writing by letter dated the 16th December 2014 in which she stated inter alia that up until 21st November 2014 the HR Manager had “not done a thing to help me.” and outlined her reasons for not acceding to his request to meet. A further unsuccessful attempt was made by the respondent company to hold an investigation meeting about the matter in January 2015.
Following her resignation the claimant has been unfit to work due to a number of medical conditions. It is her hope that she will be fit to work in the future.
Determination:
The Tribunal has considered at length the evidence presented to it and documents submitted for consideration. Having done so, the Tribunal, on balance, has concluded that the claimant has established her claim that she was unfairly dismissed. The Tribunal believes that, in considering all of the circumstances, there was certain inevitability around the claimant’s decision to resign and that this occurred in the context of the company’s failure to discharge its general duty of care to the claimant. The arrival of one Mr J.N as General Manager in October 2014 did, finally, see the company take steps to commence a meaningful process. However, in the Tribunal’s opinion, this was simply too late in the day.
There was clearly a conflict situation festering for some time in the respondent’s bakery department between the claimant and two other individuals. It is the Tribunal’s opinion that the respondent was satisfied to allow this to continue rather than address the matter in a pro-active fashion. The Tribunal believes that the prevailing attitude on the part of the respondent was that it was dealing with a conflict between two individuals in particular that didn’t get along and never would resulting in tit for tat complaints around seemingly petty issues. This resulted in an unhealthy work environment that the respondent seemed disinclined to address in a timely fashion.
In approaching the matter in this fashion and in failing to deal with it decisively, the respondent allowed the situation for the claimant to escalate and in so doing fell short in its duty of care to her. Regrettably, the situation declined to the point where it was no longer in the best interests of the claimant to continue in her employment.
In deciding on the appropriate remedy, the Tribunal must have due regard to the fact that the claimant has been and is unfit for work since the termination of her employment. The claimant is availing of the appropriate supports to assist her in her return to full health and employability and the Tribunal wishes her well with her endeavours. She represented herself very ably before the Tribunal and perhaps the process was a significant step in enabling here to recover and move forward in a positive fashion.
As the claimant remains unfit for work the Tribunal awards her compensation in the sum of €1,407.00 pursuant to the provisions of Section 7 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 as amended Section 6 (a)(ii) of the Unfair Dismissals (Amendment) Act 1993.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)