ADJ-00005218

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION 

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00005218

Parties:

Complaint(s):

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 28/02/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer O'Shea

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 [and/or Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 and/or Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s). 

Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The claimant submitted the respondent was in breach of the Act for failing to award her her statutory entitlements to holidays under the Act.She asserted that she had an entitlement to 20 days annual leave and that it was not been honoured by the respondent. 

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The respondent denied that there had been any breach of the Act – it was submitted that the claimant worked 24 hours per week and that she got her full statutory annual leave entitlement on a pro rata basis.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

Having reviewed the evidence presented by the parties and the correspondence and records submitted by the respondent, I am satisfied the respondent has met their obligations and that the claimant is receiving her full statutory annual leave entitlement pro rata to her weekly attendance.

Accordingly I do not uphold the complaint. 

Industrial Relations Acts 1969

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The claimant submitted that she had been the subject of unfair treatment at her workplace as she was being treated less favourably than her colleagues.She asserted that she had sought to engage with the respondent but to no avail.She rejected claims that she used her personal phone at work and claims by the respondent that she took too long when using the bathroom.She asserted that she felt victimised in the workplace and asked for a copy of the respondent’s bullying and harassment policy.She set out a chronology of her exchanges with the respondent on her complaints.She asserted that she was treated less favourably than other staff with respect to being required to leave the Stores during lunch time.Her GP advised her to take time off from work owing to stress related illness and the company’s response had been to refer her to the company doctor for a medical.The respondent had undertaken to remove a final written warning from her file and confirm the removal of same in writing but had failed to do so.Reference was made t conflict with the claimant’s co worker and the claimant asserted that she had witnessed the respondent shouting at and insulting a co worker.The General Manager had summoned the claimant to his office after she attempted to assist a co-worker and she submitted that the GM told her it was time for her to look for another job.Ultimately, the respondent engaged a mediator to assist in resolving the conflict at work.She asserted that notwithstanding the appointment of a mediator, the conflict and stress at work continued – she stated that she was very upset to receive a letter of warning regarding performance issues – after she pursued her grievances.She asserted that she was still required to tolerate unacceptable and unfair treatment in the workplace.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The respondent asserted that they had received complaints about the claimant from her colleague at work and they had engaged the services of an external mediator with a view to resolving the ongoing conflict.It was submitted that it was their understanding that all matters had been resolved through mediation and they were most surprised to learn of the complaint to the WRC so soon after the intervention of the mediator.

Recommendation

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

I have reviewed the evidence presented at the hearing and acknowledge the claimant’s expressed distress in relation to her working conditions.I further acknowledge that the respondent was unaware that a number of the claimant’s grievances remained unresolved. It is apparent that matters have been compounded by the failure on the respondent’s part to honour the undertaking given at the meeting on the 26^th.April 2016 to propose to the directors that the written warning be removed from the claimant’s file and accordingly I recommend that the respondent , as a matter of urgency - honour said undertaking .

It was clear at the hearing that the claimant has a number of grievances with management as opposed to her work colleagues and I recommend that the claimant be facilitated in processing those grievances through the company grievance procedure and/or the company bullying/harassment prevention policy. If the grievances remain unresolved following their processing through the internal procedures , the claimant can exercise her right to process the complaints through the WRC 

Dated:               12 June 2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer O'Shea