ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

A Customer Care Assistant– V – A Restaurant

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00005088

Complaint(s)/Dispute(s) for Resolution:

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 27/02/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gerry Rooney

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, following the referral of dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

The complainant is a Latvian national that has been working with the Respondent since 4^th September 2006 as a Customer Care Assistant. She complained that she has been treated unfairly in that her working hours have been reduced since January 2016, and where she has been bullied by the Respondent’s senior manager, her supervisor, and other members of staff which has resulted in her having to take sick leave for depression since September 2016.

In relation to the alleged bullying, the Complainant has also contended that she has been shouted at, given unreasonable tasks and unreasonable duties compared to other staff, and where unfair complaints were made against her. The Complainant advised that when she sought to raise her own concerns she was not aware of the grievance procedures, and there was nobody who could assist or advise her as her complaints were against her supervisor and a senior manager in the organisation. The Complainant further contended that she submitted her concerns by email but these were ignored by her employer. She maintained that she was not aware if there was a grievance procedure under which she could raise her concerns. On that basis she felt isolated and where she could find no support.

She advised that as a consequence of her treatment she was unable to return to attend work in September 2016 and therefore raised her complaint to the Work Place Relations Commission to seek a resolution of matters. She is currently on certified sick leave where her medical certificate indicates depression.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

The Respondent outlined that its work is seasonal where, due to the nature of its business, there is less demand for staff during school term. The busy period is therefore during school holidays, bank holidays, and holiday periods such as Easter. During these periods all staff would be rostered for fewer hours.

The Respondent argued that the Complaint was not treated less favourably than others, and maintained that the Complainant’s rosters were similar to other staff.   Rostered time tables were presented at the hearing which confirmed the rostered days of the Complainant, and where her work pattern was either four or five days’ work over seven days; and this compared favourably to other rostered staff. (The Complainant produced the same roster schedule as the Respondent during the hearing which verified this pattern of work).

The Respondent denied that it would have shouted at the Complainant, and contended that in particular the senior manager accused of such behaviour (who attended the hearing) only attended the workplace once a week, typically in the office, and therefore could not have behaved in the manner alleged. The Respondent also presented records of disciplinary meetings in April 2015, April 2016, and September 2016 where it was noted that the Complainant had received sanctions of verbal warnings for her behaviour.

The Respondent denied being aware of any complaint by email that was raised by the complaint, and maintained that if such a complaint had been raised it would have been handled by the Business Manager.

Recommendation:

Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the dispute in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act. In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 I am entitled to investigate the matter and make a recommendation to the parties setting forth my opinion on the merits of the dispute.

Having considered the matters and representations made by the parties I am satisfied that the Complainant has concerns regarding her rostering for work, and also raised concerns by email to her employer that do not appear to have been addressed properly. I am also satisfied that the Complainant was subject to a number of disciplinary sanctions, but that she disagreed about the issues related to these hearings, and was not aware of how to appeal them. The Complainant also maintained in light of the fact that a senior manager and owner of the business had dealt with the disciplinary issues she would not get a fair hearing to any appeal that she would have made.

I therefore make the following recommendations:

• That the Respondent affords the Complainant with an opportunity to appeal the findings of the disciplinary hearings in April and September 2016 as the Complainant stated she was not provided with such an opportunity, nor understood that she could do so. As such, and in advance of such an appeal I further recommend that the Complainant is to be provided with a copy of the disciplinary procedures in a language that she can fully understand, and to be provided with the opportunity to be accompanied by a person who can assist her in interpreting matters relating to any appeal, and appeal hearing she may attend;

   

• That the Respondent provides the Complainant with detailed information regarding its grievance procedures in a language that she can fully understand, and that the Respondent affords the Complainant with an opportunity to raise her grievance regarding her rostering and the alleged unfair treatment she has received regarding such rosters;

   

• That both her appeal to the disciplinary matters, and her grievance regarding the rostering, be heard by suitably qualified, experienced, and independent persons;

   

• That both the appeal and grievance procedures commence within three weeks of the issuing of this recommendation, or within three weeks of the Complainant being certified medically fit to participate in such procedures;

   

• That in the interim the Complainant be permitted to return to work once she is certified fit to do so, and where she is afforded a work roster that is not less favourable to other members of staff.

Dated:   19^TH April 2017