Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Employee

A Retail Business

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00012496-001

14/07/2017

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00012496-002

14/07/2017

The Complainant worked with the Respondent since February 2006. She worked a regular evening shift – 4:00 – 10:000 pm.

Up to February 2017 she had not experienced any issues in her employment. However, in the period from February to July 2017, a number of issues arose which the Complainant believes the Respondent handled inappropriately. As a result of this the Complainant left her employment on 13 July 2017.

The Complainant cited two significant issues which lie at the core of her complaint.

Firstly, in February she experienced, what she considered to be bullying behaviour from one of her co-workers. While she endured this for a period, she eventually advised the Respondent, who indicate that he would speak with the colleague in question.

The Complainant stated that, while the previous complained of behaviour stopped, the co-worker ceased all normal communication with her. The Complainant stated that she found this a very uncomfortable situation to have to deal with. The Complainant claimed the Respondent never checked in with her in relation to how things were progressing following his intervention on foot of her complaint. The Complainant stated that she felt there was no point in raising the matter any further with the Respondent.

In addition, the Complainant stated that a change to the co-worker’s shift, which was implemented by the Respondent to reduce the level of contact between the parties, actually rewarded the inappropriate behaviour as the re-arranged shift was more beneficial to the co-worker than that what he previously worked.

The Complainant stated that the uncomfortable situation continued up to July 2017 and was becoming ever more difficult to deal with.

The second issue raised by the Complainant related to staffing levels and breaks. During a very busy three-day period in July 2017, (11/12/13th), during which the Complainant considered the level of cover was insufficient and prevented her from getting her normal breaks, an issue arose with a customer, which required the Complainant to seek the Respondent’s assistance in sorting it out. According to the Complainant’s evidence, the Respondent did not handle this situation appropriately.

Against the background of the ongoing difficulties she was experiencing with her co-worker, the Complainant felt she could no longer continue in her employment. The Complainant did not attend for work following completion of her shift on 13 July 2017.

In her evidence the Complainant stated that, when she contacted the Respondent the following morning (14 July 2017) and advised him of her intention to submit a complaint to the WRC, his reaction was not appropriate.

In her evidence to the Hearing, the Complainant stated that she was not seeking any redress other than to highlight that, in her view, had there been appropriate policies/procedures in place and had the Respondent dealt with matters in an appropriate manner, the situation could have been easily resolved.

In this regard, the Complainant stated that she was pleased to see that such policies were now in place and, as a result, she feels it is unlikely that such a situation will arise in the future. Therefore, the Complainant considered the improvements that followed her bringing the matter to attention, was her compensation.   However, she stated that it was unfortunate that she had to give up her job in order for this to happen.

The representative on behalf of the Respondent stated that the matters involved in this case were essentially a grievance. It was further stated that the Respondent understood his low key, informal approach to dealing with the matter was the most appropriate in the context of the small number of staff working in the premises.

The Respondent stated that, following his initial intervention in response to the Complainant raising the matter of her co-worker’s behaviour with him, she did not raise any further issues with him and, as a consequence, he considered the matter had been resolved.

Given that the Complainant was not seeking any redress and that the Respondent is in the process of implementing appropriate HR policies and procedures, there was nothing for me to make a recommendation on.

However, in the course of the discussions at the Hearing it emerged that the Complainant had not been paid for the last three days she worked in July 2017. The Respondent readily agreed to address both of these issues as a matter of priority.

Given the circumstances in which the Complainant’s employment terminated, I am of the view that some consideration should be given to an element of payment for notice. Given that the decision to terminate was taken by the Complainant in a situation in which she did not provide notice, I consider the full application of Section 4(2)(d) of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973, to be unreasonable.

However, having carefully considered all of the circumstances leading up to the Complainant’s departure from her employment with the Respondent, I am of the view that a payment representing three weeks’ notice would be reasonable in the circumstances and am recommending this in full and final settlement of any/all claims the Complainant may have in this regard.

Based on the finding/conclusions as set out above, I recommend that the Respondent pay to the Complainant a payment representing three weeks’ pay in lieu of notice.

Industrial Relations Dispute

Bullying & Harassment