ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00008834
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts | CA-00011716-001 | 02/06/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 15/05/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Joe Donnelly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969,, following the referral of the 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.
Background:
The complainant had been employed as a baker in the retail outlet operated by the respondent working 30 hours per week. The complainant commenced her employment in July 2016 and the employment terminated on 1st June 2017. The dispute is in relation to a claim by the complainant that she was unfairly dismissed from her employment with the respondent. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant had requested the Saturday of the June weekend as a day off. The complainant was advised to check with the other baker to ensure cover for the day and did so. On Thursday before the weekend the respondent was advised that she would have to work Sunday and refused on the basis that she did not work Sundays. A telephone conversation with the owner resulted in an argument over the weekend arrangements during which the complainant was told to either work the Sunday or leave the employment. The complainant handed over the keys and left the premises. She refused a subsequent request to write a letter of resignation. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The complainant had not been granted permission to take the Saturday off as there was a requirement for baking duties over that long weekend. The other baker could only work Friday evening and this was not the required cover. The owner was on her way to an appointment in Dublin when her supervisor rang to advise that the complainant was refusing to work either Saturday or Sunday. When the complainant came on the phone the owner did not shout but did tell complainant to make up her mind as regards either working during the weekend or, if unhappy, to work her notice. The complainant told the supervisor that she was leaving straight away and handed over her keys. |
Findings and Conclusions:
This is an unfortunate dispute from both parties’ point of view. There is a difference of opinion as to whether the complainant was granted the Saturday of the long weekend off. There appears to have been no system in place for recording and sanctioning requests for time-off. I note, however, that the roster for that weekend, which was available the previous week, had the complainant on duty on the Saturday. The complainant stated that her working hours did not vary and therefore she was not in the habit of checking the roster. The other significant issue was the respondent’s requirements for baking on the long weekend. The other baker working for the respondent was employed on the basis that he had another job and that his hours of work with the respondent had regard of this. Because it was a long weekend the owner’s position was that she required baking to be performed either on Saturday or Sunday to ensure adequate fresh supplies were available throughout the weekend. When the complainant asked the other baker to provide cover for her he agreed but this was on the basis that he would work a shift on the Friday evening. He was not available for Saturday working. It therefore appears that the understanding that each party had in relation to what was required was different. The matter came to a head on the Thursday when the supervisor was instructed by the owner to sort out the issue of Saturday working in the bakery. The owner herself was driving to Dublin for an appointment. When the complainant refused to work either Saturday (or Sunday as an alternative) the supervisor phoned the owner. There is disagreement as to the how the conversation that took place between the complainant and the owner was conducted with the complainant stating that the owner shouted at her and the owner denying this. The result of the conversation was that the complainant refused to work either day. The owner said that she told the complainant to choose between working on one of those days or, if unhappy, working her notice. The complainant said that the choice was to work or get out. The complainant then handed in her keys and left the premises. The complainant sent a text the following Tuesday requesting her P45 Form and any monies due to her. A request to provide a letter of resignation was refused by the complainant. I note that the complainant lodged her complaint with the WRC on the day after she left the store. The complainant commenced new employment in August 2017 in a similar position albeit on less pay. On a point of clarification, the complainant said that a remark made to the supervisor about bullying was in reaction to the phone call and that she had not been the subject of bullying behaviour while employed by the respondent. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
In her initial submission to the WRC the complainant alleges that she was unfairly dismissed. It certainly was unwise of the owner to engage in the type of conversation that she had with the complainant whilst driving to an appointment. Remarks made in that context are liable to be misinterpreted. It was certainly the complainant’s belief that her employment had been terminated. The complainant was at fault, however, in not checking the roster the previous week to ensure that the arrangements that she believed were agreed in April were reflected in the roster. I have already noted the different understandings that the parties had in relation to the requirements for staffing the bakery during the long weekend. If these matters had been discussed in the less pressured atmosphere of the previous week it is possible that the outcome may have been different. The complainant acted on the belief that she had been dismissed by ending the phone call, handing in her keys and leaving the workplace. The following day the complainant lodged her complaint with the WRC and some days later requested her P45 Form and monies due to her. The respondent agreed to this request without making reference to the complainant working her notice which, according to her contract, was two weeks. I find therefore that on the balance of probabilities the complainant was justified in believing that she had been dismissed. I also find that she contributed to that situation by her actions. In all these circumstances I recommend that the respondent pay to the complainant the sum of €1,000.00 in full and final settlement of all matters arising from the termination of her employment. |
Dated: 03/08/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Joe Donnelly