Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Housekeeper

Service Industry

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00007912-001

01/11/2016

The Complainant is employed as a housekeeper with the Respondent since the 24th of January 2002. She alleges that she was not notified in writing of a change in her terms of employment. She alleges that the Respondent wished her to work in the wash-up area without her agreement. As a result she filed a complaint with the Workplace Relations Commission on the 1^st of November 2016.

That she worked as a housekeeper for the Respondent from the 24^th of January 2002 to the 19^th of September 2016. She was perfectly happy in this job. The Respondent decided that he wished her to work in the wash-up department. She advised him that she did not wish to do this. She also advised the Respondent that her fingers were sore and she would not be in a position to carry out these duties. However the Respondent insisted that she carry out her new role in the wash-up department or that he would have no position available for her in the company.

That the Complainant was discovered on the company premises without permission from 4pm to 11pm on the 18^th of September 2016. Her normal day ran from 8am to 4pm. During the 7 hours on the company premises she was seen going in and out of bedrooms without any explanation. When she was approached by management as to why she was on the company premises without permission, she was abrupt and did not give a satisfactory explanation for her actions. The Complainant did not attend work after this date and submitted a medical cert from her doctor.

A meeting took place on the 7^th of October 2016. The Respondent advised the Complainant that he needed to know what happened on the evening of the 18^th of September 2016 when she was on the company premises without authorisation for 7 hours. The Respondent advised her that her action was completely irrational. She was asked was she on medication and if there was anything wrong that would lead her to this behaviour. She was asked if she needed time off to rest as she may be under some stress and if so she could take holidays that were due to her. She was advised that she would get whatever help she needs and if she needed to see a doctor or anyone else the Respondent would pay for this but she must go and see someone and talk to them.

A further meeting took place with the Complainant on the 17^th of October 2016. The Complainant was advised that the Respondent had received a certificate from her doctor stating that she is fit for work. However due to her actions on the 18^th of September 2016 which placed customers privacy in jeopardy and the fact that she cannot recall 7 hours of time that she was on the company premises without permission, the Respondent is unable to offer a position within the accommodation department. She was advised that she would be offered a part-time position within the wash-up department. She stated that she did not wish to work in this department. She also advised that she would be leaving the organisation and that she would provide a letter of resignation.

During the course of the hearing, the Respondent advised the hearing that he was willing to meet with the Complainant’s doctor to discuss her health on a private and confidential basis provided that she was willing to give him permission to do so. He also advised the Complainant that he reserved the position to send her to the company doctor to access her medical condition. If he found after consulting the doctors that she was fit to return to work, he was willing to reinstate her to her original position.

The Complainant indicated that she was willing to allow the Respondent to discuss her medical condition with her doctor. She further stated that she was willing to give him a letter with her written permission to do so. She stated that she had no objection to being referred to the company doctor if the Respondent felt it appropriate to do so.

It was agreed between the parties at the hearing that the Respondent would make contact with her doctor and would reserve his position based on the discussions he had with her doctor whether he wished to refer her to the company doctor.