ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00002976

Complaint for Resolution:

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 09/12/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and following the presentation by an employee of a complaint of a contravention by an employer of an Act contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015, or where otherwise provided for in the 2015 Act, and made to the Director General and following a referral by the said Director General of this matter to the Adjudication services, I can confirm that I have fulfilled my obligation to make all relevant inquiries into the complaint or dispute. I have additionally and where appropriate heard the oral evidence of the parties and their witnesses and have taken account of the evidence tendered in the course of the hearing.

The complaint is brought pursuant to the Unfair Dismissals legislation and is grounded on a Workplace Relations Complaint Form dated the 27^th of April 2016 received within the six month time limit allowed by Statute. The Complainant has 52 weeks employment.

Parties: A Receptionist -v- A Guesthouse

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

The Complainant gave oral evidence which was tested on Cross-examination. The Complainant was engaged by the Respondent Company to operate as a Hotel Reception Manager in their premises on the North side of Dublin City. The Complainant had had previous experience in this area and was head hunted by the Hotel’s owner in 2002. The Complainant had a mutually respectful relationship with the said Hotel owner and they worked closely together for many years until his untimely death in 2013 at which time members of his family took over the day to day operation of the Hotel.

When times were economically good the Hotel’s clientele was made up of concert and other event goers as well as builders providing labour in Dublin. With the downturn in the economy the Hotel very wisely sought other alternative clientele so as to remain viable. With the homelessness crises in Dublin the Hotel was well suited to housing people who had no homes of their own and had come under the jurisdiction and care of Dublin City Council. The use of the facility by Dublin City Council started in 2008 and by 2013 the occupancy was made up almost exclusively of Dublin City Council clients. There can be no doubt that the change in clientele-type brought with it considerable difficulties for the front line staff. The Complainant outlined very difficult experiences she had to deal with in the course of her employment. These ranged from actual suicides, to near deaths relating to overdosing. There were needles in the bedrooms, bloody fights, shouting and screaming. The Complainant and other staff members watched as babies and children seemed to be neglected by parents who had been afforded accommodation under their roof.

The Complainant presented as a competent and able Employee and, indeed, her Employer did indicate that her service had been loyal, energetic and without fault. Of note is the fact that she was delegated to be the contact person with whom Dublin City Council was expected to liaise for logistical and operational purposes. The Complainant said she had an excellent relationship with her opposite numbers inside the City Council.

On the death of her original Employer there was a shift of power in the Hotel which appeared to lack the same level of direction as heretofore. In particular the wife and son of the original owner became more involved and shared the duties with the Complainant.

It is an unfortunate fact of the Complainant’s case that she was not inclined to make any particular complaint about the levels of stress she was experiencing and had been experiencing and arising out of the truly upsetting nature of the workplace.

By the end of 2015 the situation had not improved and a somewhat fraught relationship had developed between the Complainant and new management and in particular one of the sons. It is accepted that there was no written Contract of Employment and if there were Grievance or Disciplinary procedures in operation these were not made known to the Complainant.

On the 29^th of November 2015 the Complainant handed in her resignation. This was initially prompted by a row with the son over Christmas rostering though the Complainant has stated that the overall job and the stress associated with coping with the nature of the business had overwhelmed her to the extent that she now needed to get out.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

Two of the Respondent’s Directors gave evidence in relation to the resignation proffered by the Complainant at the end of 2015. Both said they were very surprised at the fact that the Complainant who had served the Company so loyally for 14 years was handing in her resignation. Director1 (the wife) received the letter of resignation and did go about trying to meet with the Complainant and a meeting was set up a week later to try and understand why this had happened. Whilst there can be no absolute knowledge as to what passed at this meeting it seems to have generally deteriorated with no real effort made to see if a workable solution could be reached . Director2 was at the meeting and took offence at being compared to his father by the Complainant and coming up short in the said comparison. The Adjudicator has some sympathy for the two Directors who still seemed to be recovering from the death of a beloved and revered father who had also, it must been said, been greatly respected by the Complainant. On his own admission the Director 2 only came back to the business after his father’s death and is not a natural Hotelier and the crux of the difficulties which did arise thereafter might be seen to have arisen from his management style together with a lack of insight into the damaging effect this working environment might have on any reasonable individual.

Adjudicator’s findings : 

I have considered the evidence herein. The oral evidence was supported by some documentary evidence which has been taken into account. Both parties were given the opportunity to test the evidence of the other. The Complainant brings her case by way of Workplace Relations Complaint Form dated the 27^th of April 2016 and hers is a case of Unfair Dismissal by reason of Constructive Dismissal. In the circumstances, the burden rests with the Complainant to show that her Employer acted in such a way, or that the circumstances which pertained were of such a nature, that her resignation was reasonable and foreseeable in all the circumstances.

There can be no doubt that this workplace has been an extremely difficult one since the decision by the Respondent to become involved with Dublin City Council for the purpose of providing beds for the homeless. The process was gradual but by 2013 the Hotel was being used exclusively by City Council beneficiaries. The rate was €35.00 per bed per night and at full occupancy the hotel might expect to make and be paid up to €12,000.00 per week (per print media article presented in the course of hearing).

It seems surprising that the Dublin City Council made no real effort to assist in training ordinary Hotel staff in how to cope with the special needs of the Homeless and this surprise is even more compounded where staff are being asked to deal with drug and other addiction addicts. In the absence of this support the onus firmly rests on the Employer to adequately train staff and or give them facility to cope with the vicissitudes associated with this inherently stressful working environment.

Absolutely no normal rules or criteria can apply where people are overdosing and committing suicide in the workplace. This is an entirely different scenario to the unfortunate overnight passing away of a paying guest in the commercial Hotel setting. These people/clients have been trusted into the care of the staff at this Hotel and a sense of responsibility inevitably arises which leads to an over-burdening of staff which is just not a standard workplace norm. The Complainant presented as a very capable lady who has been very affected by what she has seen and by what she has been left to cope with. Whilst she never sought help, the reality is that any reasonable fair minded Employer could reasonably be expected to see that this kind of working environment is hazardous to the mental well-being of any individual. The failure by the Respondent to have recognised this in an objective way, is clear.

On balance, it is accepted that the Complainant did not give any warning and or raise the issues that were of concern to her. Some of that seemed to have resulted in the worsening relationship between herself and Director 2. However, even bearing this in mind, the Complainant’s decision to tender her resignation came about as a result of the lack of support, counselling, understanding and sense of personal security in the workplace.

Decision:

The complainant was constructively dismissed by the Respondent as defined and recognised in the Unfair Dismissals legislation. In circumstances where the Complainant has not sought alternative employment and in recognising the fact that the Complainant did not afford her Employer the opportunity to ameliorate the situation, the Complainant is awarded the sum of €15,000 compensation.

Dated:   9^th May 2017