Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Cashier

Financial Sector

Representatives

Stephen Reel –Solicitor (Representative)                               Terry Boyle (Representative)

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts

CA-00003892-001

18/04/2016

The Complainant was employed as a cashier from the 30^th of November 2015 to the 5^th of April 2016. She alleges that she was unfairly dismissed by the Respondent on the 5^th of April 2016. She also alleges that she had to work between 8 and 9 hours per day without any breaks. She filed a complaint with the Workplace Relations Commission on the 18^th of April 2016.

The following is a summary of the Complainant’s oral submission;

That she has two complaints. The first one relates to her dismissal from the organisation and the second one relates to the fact that she received no breaks at work.

That her boss frequently shouted at her in relation to work matters. On the 4^th of April 2016, he was shouting at her and she requested him to stop doing so and explained to him that he could not behave in that manner to staff. On the 5^th of April 2016 when she reported for work, she was told to come back later to see her boss. She came back later and he met her and said to her that he thought ‘she didn’t like her job’. She replied that she did like her job, but that she did not like the way that he was talking to her and that he was bullying her and showed no respect for her or other members of staff.   He ended the conversation straight away and requested her to bring back her uniform and work equipment to the company as she would not be working for him anymore. He dismissed her from the workplace on the 5^th of April 2016 without due process or fair procedures and contrary to the terms of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

She was required to work 8 or 9 hours every day without a break. She had to eat her lunch at the desk while she was doing her work. She also had to take her breaks at the desk while she was carrying out her work. This was totally unfair and contrary to the terms of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

The following is a summary of the Respondent’s oral submission:

On the 4^th of April 2016, the Respondent noticed that the Complainant was carrying a wet mop dripping water across a tiled floor and a carpet area without a bucket underneath it to stop the dripping water. He approached her and told her this was not good enough and what she was doing was unsafe and could result in someone slipping on the floor and injuring themselves. He told her to get a dry mop dry the floor. She got into an argument with him resulting in her deciding to leave her workplace at 05:20pm. Her shift did not finish until 06:30pm. He understands that she called to the company premises on the 5^th of April 2016 in order to collect her P45 and to leave back her company uniform. No meeting took place with her on the 5^th of April 2016. He did not see her on the 5^th of April 2016. She left the workplace on a voluntary basis and was not dismissed.

In relation to rest breaks, the Complainant took her rest breaks away from the work desk and she also took smoke breaks. He is not sure if she was advised in writing as to her entitlements in relation to rest breaks. He is not sure if rest breaks were recorded. He will check the office when he goes back to get further information on this and will forward whatever information he has on these matters to the Complainant and the adjudicator.

There is a conflict of evidence between the parties in relation to a number of issues.

The Complainant stated that she was dismissed from her employment on the 5^th of April 2016 after a meeting with her employer. The employer stated that he never met her on the 5^th of April 2016 and that she left her employment voluntarily. The Complainant stated at the hearing that she recorded her meeting with the Respondent on the 5^th of April 2016. She stated that this recording was taken without his permission or knowledge.

The Complainant failed to raise any grievance with the Respondent in line with the company procedures. Section 14 of the Grievance procedure state;

‘If you have any grievance relating to your employment you should raise the matter internally with Mr. T.B.’

‘You may be required to put any such grievance in writing’.

‘Having inquired into your grievance, Mr. TB will discuss it with you and will then notify you of his decision.’

‘If the decision of Mr. TB is not acceptable, you may then refer the matter in writing to him, where he will nominate an appropriate independent person from outside the company to hear the grievance and offer you a right of appeal.’

‘When stating grievances, a fellow employee or representative of your choice may accompany you.’

The Complainant was fully aware of the grievance procedure that was to be followed in the company in the event of any grievance that may arise. The Complainant failed to follow these procedures.

The Complainant stated that she recorded a conversation with the Respondent on the 5^th of April 2016 without his knowledge or permission. I am unable to hear this alleged recording as the Respondent was unaware that he was allegedly being recorded.

The Complainant stated that she was required to work between 8 and 9 hours per day without any rest breaks. The Respondent forwarded records of the working hours the Complainant worked each day. These records were signed off by the Complainant. She worked 40 hours each week.

However, the Respondent did not provide any records showing the rest breaks that the Complainant took each day. There is a clear requirement under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 for the Respondent to keep records relating to rest breaks that employees take in the workplace.

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, I recommend that the complaint relating to the allegation that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed is not well founded. The Complainant failed to follow the grievance procedure outlined in clause 14 of her Contract of Employment. This procedure should have been followed in the first instance in processing a grievance with the employer.

Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, I recommend that the complaint relating to the non-provision of rest breaks to the Complainant is well founded. The Respondent was unable to provide records which would show that the Complainant received her daily rest periods in line with the legislation.

I recommend that the Respondent pay to the complainant €900 for failing to provide rest breaks to the Complainant. This sum should be paid within 6 weeks of the date of this recommendation.