Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A House keeping Assistant

A Hotel

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-00013270-001

23/08/2017

This is a Dispute regarding work practices at the Employer Hotel which caused the claimant to become distressed and leave her employment. The Employer dispute the claim.

The Claimant worked as a Housekeeping Assistant at the Employers Hotel from May 1,2016 to 20 August ,2017. She worked variable hours but mainly a 20-hour week in return for €9.25 per hour. She submitted that she had not received a contract of employment.

The Claimant submitted a complaint before the WRC on 23 August 2017 alleging that she had been targeted by the Owner of the Hotel causing her to feel intimidated, singled out ridiculed and undermined in the two months preceding her departure. She submitted that she was faced with impossible targets in which to have her work completed in accommodation.

She was informed that her work had deteriorated and there were problems with her attitude. She had issues with the owner of the hotel and sought her instructions in writing.

On July 20,2017, the claimant submitted a formal complaint to the Hotel General Manager in accordance with section 18 of her work contract and page 30 of the staff handbook.

She recounted events from July 9 and July 14. She qualified this report by stating:

“I feel I am being bullied by being intimidated, being isolated and repeated requests with impossible targets ……I would like if this behaviour towards me would stop ….”

The Claimant sought a reply within 10 days.

The Claimant went on to raise the unanswered complaint with the General Manager. He told her that he refused to show the complaint to the owner and refused to help the claimant in any way. She felt that she was being sneered at.

The Claimant contended that she had not been addressed on her work before this. She recalled being deducted pay for earlier finishes to roster and understood that the owner was “writing a warning “regarding the events of July 14. She feared losing her job. She was overwhelmed by the unfair criticism of her work.

The Claimant submitted that she began to feel ill and decided to leave. She resigned for sake of her well-being and informed the employer that she had a new job. She did not receive any feedback from her complaints and she came to the hearing to seek an apology for the behaviour she experienced to secure closure on an unhappy time in her working life.

The Employer disputed the claim. She introduced herself to the hearing as one of the owners of the Hotel but wasn’t based there or involved with the hiring or managing of staff. She did, however maintain a fortnightly presence there.

The Employer submitted that the claimant, an Irish national was one of several nationalities who worked in the accommodation side of the business. The other nationalities were Romanian, Hungarian and Polish.

A Revenue report earlier in the year had drawn attention to the system of accommodation management. The General Manager undertook to implement a revised turnaround time for rooms to half an hour allocation per room. The Business had considered hiring more staff.

The Employer understood that the claimant was unhappy with the revised system and she had state that she was going to get back onto the WRC who had called to the premises earlier in the January 2017, saying “this crack has started again “in relation to not allowing more time to complete tasks.

The General manager was on annual leave from July 14 to the end of July 2017. Later that week the claimant was not helpful when she was requested complete a room for accommodation purposes.

The Claimants grievance followed and she asked the General Manager if he had furnished the response on behalf of the business? She was assured that a response had issued a submitted a copy to the hearing.

The Employer invested the responsibility for performance management with the General Manager.

The Employer outlined that she had not spoken to the claimant after she refuse to undertake a task she was requested to do. She was aware that the claimant had gone on to send “a nasty email to the General Manager “but this was not produce for the record.

The Claimant was paid for all the hours she had worked. The Employer disputed that two incidents of disagreement amounted to Bullying. The Claimant had started to refuse legitimate requests of task completion and she was advised to take up her dissatisfaction with the General Manager.

The Employer forwarded several documents post hearing. These were exchanged with the claimant.

1 The General Manager confirmed in an email dated May 18 ,2018 that he no longer worked there but stated that the Harassment complaint handed to him by the claimant had been replied to in writing.

2 Documentation of interparty correspondence: Employer and Advisor. I have treated this as privileged)

3 Contract of Employment signed by both parties on 5 and 7 June 2016.

The Employer concluded by stating that she believed that she had no case to answer as the claimant had not advised that her departure was informed by any difficulties.

I have listened carefully to both parties in this case. The Claimant presented as very traumatised following her experience of her latter-day work at the Hotel. The Employer disputed her recollection of events and instead framed the response on legitimate management requests for work with which the claimant took exception.

It was clear to me that the claimant had placed her faith in this complaint resolving matters as she had had a positive interaction with another aspect of the WRC in January 2017.

My role as an Adjudication in relation to Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 provides that I :

1 Investigate a Trade Dispute

2 Make a Recommendation to the parties to the dispute setting forth my opinion on the merits of the dispute.

Section 2 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 as amended outlines:

the expression “trade dispute” means any dispute or difference between employers and workers or between workers and workers connected with the employment or non-employment, or the terms of the employment, or with the conditions of employment, of any person and includes any such dispute or difference between employers and workers where the employment has ceased,

In this case, the employment had ended before the complaint was raised at the WRC. What was presented by the claimant was a grievance regarding her working conditions and the interpersonal conflict which arose when the system of work changed at the Hotel. It seemed to me that while the Employer was clear on this change in time allowed for room completion, I was not certain that the claimant was so well versed. This created an understandable friction between the parties who had different expectations of each other.

Both parties accepted that the claimant had been paid for all hours worked.

The major dispute between the parties surrounding the throughput of the document submitted by the claimant on July 20 and responded to by the Employer on July 26 ,2017. Neither document was signed and both were dated during a period referred to as the General manager’s annual leave period. In both party’s submissions, this position was highlighted as the “go to “person for performance management. The Claimant contends that she never received the letter of July 26, yet she did not follow this up or mention her dissatisfaction at this void on her departure, some 5 weeks after she first submitted the letter. Furthermore, she indicated that the former General manager had offered to support her in her case.

I received an email from this Gentleman after the hearing which has no probative value. It did not confirm that he had responded to the letter of July 20, just that it had been responded to. I found a significant conflict here and was unable to pose further questions to establish just what happened. The letter of July 26 did not arise from any investigation known to the claimant and concluded by remarking that the claimant had shortcomings in her performance. If this was the case, this should have been addressed differently and in another forum. I found the overlap confusing and void of procedural correctness. However, the claimant is adamant that she did not receive this document.

A referral to the WRC usually postdates a local effort of resolution. It normally arises as stage 4 of the grievance procedure. Outside of the July 20 letter, and the response now relied on, there were no meetings arranged to address the clear conflict in working time .

As I look and consider the case from both parties perspectives, I have identified someone who liked their work before intensified targets entered the working day. The Employer was justified in seeking efficiencies yet , I found that there was a shortfall in communication through staff meetings or contacts to iron out any “ creases “ in a revised work system where both parties could be meet  in real time with a mutual eye on speedy resolution  . I can see that this did not happen and I see it as a missed opportunity.

Given that the parties are no longer participants in an employment relationship, while I see some merit in the Dispute, I see no basis on which I can make a meaningful recommendation for the parties. The Claimant did not make any further submission following the Employer supplementary submission.

I have found some merit in the Dispute but would have preferred if the company grievance /bullying procedure had been initiated prior to referral to a third party in accordance with SI 146/2000. The Statutory Code of Practice on Grievance Procedures.

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

I have found some merit in the Dispute raised by the claimant. I am limited in terms of my power to make a recommendation in the face of a concluded employment relationship.

However, I recommend that the Employer participates in an active Information and Consultation forum with staff prior to rolling out new initiatives which have the power to change work patterns. Staff should be given either collective or individual voices at that forum. Minutes should be available for all .

Inter personal Conflict