Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Complainant

A Consulting Company

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00017135-001

29/01/2018

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

CA-00017135-002

29/01/2018

The worker commenced employment with the respondent on 2 May 2017 and his employment terminated on 2 August 2017. He was on a salary of circa €65,000.

1.1   The worker was successful at interview for the position of Operations Project Manager with the employer company and was made an offer to take up employment with it in first week in April 2017. The employer requested that the worker leave his existing employment early in order to commence with the company. The worker subsequently started work with the employer on 2 May 2017. His role as Operations Manager was to manage service delivery and client relations in relation to a number of companies. The worker states that the first few days were slow and then management gave him access to user accounts and software in order to manage internal accounts. On the second week, the worker states that he was pulled into a client meeting and told he would be managing said project as one of the Directors Mr A ‘s wife was having a baby and he would have to take time out. Following the second week, the worker states that because the Directors were aware he had an MBA, they felt he needed to be involved in many different aspects of the business and he was pulled into various different meetings and projects which were outside the scope of his job as Project Manager. The worker states that he was put under pressure to develop a Business Unit, he was undertaking Business Development, he was managing internal accounts. He was also requested to get involved in the marketing side of the business.

1.2   The worker states that the first sign of trouble came in the last week in May 2017. He was put under pressure to produce a business case for a client. The worker states that he had approved documents and sent the final document to the client without showing it to the Director Mr. A. Thereafter, the two Directors Mr. A and Mr. V pulled the worker off that project. The worker states that in second week in June, he was called into a room by the two Directors and he was given a dressing down regarding his work and when the worker explained the complexities of the tasks at hand, he was told by Mr, A he should “make the complex simple”. The worker states that he continued to be given a wide range of tasks which were not within his remit and received no support or feedback from the Directors regarding same. The worker states that he was called to another meeting with the two Directors on 21 July and it lasted 90 minutes where he was told that his billing practices were not acceptable and he was way over the limit on certain projects and missed the scope of some of the projects. He found this meeting very intimidating.

1.3   The worker states that the two Directors particularly in his termination meeting stated that the worker could not perform the work they required of him. The worker makes the point that he highlighted at both first and second round interviews that drafting business cases and business engagement documents was not one of his strengths but they still hired him in any event. The worker states that there was a toxic culture at the organisation with very unorthodox practices. The worker was called into a meeting in late July and the Directors advised him that if he did not agree to a mutual ending of his employment that it would be considered a termination meeting. The worker states that both Directors tried to make a case that he was incompetent and not fit to carry out his required duties and was unable to generate business cases.   The worker did not want to have it on his record that he was let go and sent in a letter of resignation to the employer on 1 August 2017. The worker states that he is very aggrieved by his treatment by the employer. He has been on social welfare ever since, however he has been applying for jobs and attending 2/3 interviews each month but to no avail. With regard to his CV, he states that it is very difficult for him to explain in interviews his short tenure with the employer company. He states that he was treated most unfairly and that the company did not comply with its own policy/ procedure in relation to providing assistance, support and feedback regarding his skills and development on the job. As redress for his dispute, he has requested that the respondent provide him with a reference and that he be compensated in the amount of a month’s wages to address the alleged unfair treatment and the shortcomings of the employer organisation.

2.1The employer did not engage in the Adjudication hearing apart from submitting a statement objecting to the WRC investigating the complaint under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act.

3.1Having reviewed the documentation in the within case, I find I have jurisdiction to investigate the dispute as the objections by the employer regarding same were not submitted in the appropriate time frame.

3.2In relation to the substantive element of the dispute, based on the uncontested evidence of the worker, I find that the worker was not provided with any fair or reasonable opportunity to address the matters raised by the employer in its final meetings with the worker. I find that the employer was lacking in the provision of support and guidance to the worker particularly given his short tenure with the company. It would appear that he was drafted into many different projects and areas which were outside of his remit and he was not given adequate support to carry out said tasks. He stated that he outlined to his employer the difficulties for him to meet these unreasonable demands but no remedial action was taken by the employer. Having adduced all the evidence, I find that in the circumstances, there was a failure on behalf of the employer to adhere to basic requirements of procedural fairness in the within dispute. In the circumstances, I recommend that the employer provide the worker with a reference and a month’s salary in the amount of €5,000 to compensate him for the effects of the said treatment.

I recommend that the employer provide the worker with a reference and compensation in the amount of €5,000.