Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Shop Assistant

A Retail Outlet

Representatives

Self

Ann Marie Burke IBEC

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00009399-001

30/01/2017

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00009399-002

30/01/2017

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

CA-00008435-002

28/11/2016

CA 9399-001

The complainant commenced working for the respondent on 08.06.2016. However, his contract states that he commenced on 29.08.2016. He was given a contract to sign on the 08.06.2016. He signed it. That contract was lost and the respondent asked him to sign another contract on 15.08.2016. The signing of the second contract was outside of the two months statutory time period.

CA 9399-002

The complainant stated that after the 09.08.2016 his hours were reduced. This was done, he believes, because the incident in relation to the counterfeit money. Prior to the incident, he was working 20 hours per week. After the incident, he was working only 8 hours each week. Occasionally he did get more hours.

CA 8435 -002

The complainant alleges that the manager of the respondent outlet verbally harassed him by shouting at him and threatening to fire him several times in person and over the phone. On one occasion when the complainant inadvertently took a counterfeit note from a customer, the manager told him that he was “an idiot, incompetent useless shit”. He called him into the office to ‘dish out the punishment’. Whilst in the office he got annoyed with him again and swore at him. He then waved and him in a patronising way and said “bye bye”. The complainant then received training. From then on, every time the complainant did something wrong, the manager would bring up the counterfeit money issue. The complainant found the manager’s treatment of him to be aggressive.

The complainant did not lodge a grievance in relation to this or any other matter.

CA 9399-001

The complainant commenced employment with the respondent on the 22.07.2016. He received a written statement of his terms of employment on the 15.08.2016 within the two months statutory time frame.

CA 9399-002

The respondent denies that there was ever a reduction in the complainant’s working hours. His contract stated that his hours was 8-16 hours per week. At no point did this change. The rosters demonstrate the respondents position.

CA 8435 – 002

On the 09.08.2016 the complainant was operating the tills. An incident occurred. The complainant accepted three separate € 20.00 counterfeit notes. The incident was brought to his manager’s attention. He held an informal verbal counselling meeting with the complainant. He suggested the complainant attend a refresher till standards training session. As part of the complainant’s induction he received and signed off on till training. The training includes what protocols to follow if a counterfeit note is detected. Despite his failure to comply with the protocol he was not disciplined in relation to the matter. He was given verbal counselling and further training.

The following week the complainant requested two weeks, unpaid leave. That leave was granted. He returned to work on the 20.08.2016.

On Saturday, the 24.09.2016 he failed to report for a shift. The manager made several attempts to contact him. After several attempts, he got through to him. The complainant said that he was not aware that he had been rostered that day. The roster is published a week in advance. The complainant was asked to meet with his manager the following week to discuss the event. When the complainant met with the manager, he was reminded of the importance of checking the roster when it is published as week in advance of the shifts. During that meeting the complainant requested more hours. He was told that his contractual hours were between 8 -16 and the only guarantee he could give him was 8 hours per week. On the 10.10.2016 the complainant resigned his position. He then wrote to the head office in the U.K. stating that he wanted to raise a grievance in relation to the matters that are before the Adjudicator today. On the 27.10.2016 he wrote again to the office in the U.K. stating that he no long wised to proceed with his grievance.

CA 9399-001

I am satisfied that the complainant was given a statement in writing settling out his terms and conditions of employment within the statutory time frame. A copy of the contract, signed and dated was submitted during the hearing.

I find that the respondent has satisfied its obligation under the Act and therefore the claim fails.

CA 9399-002

The complainant’s contractual hours were 8-16 hours per week. I am satisfied based on the rosters submitted that the complainant’s weekly hours did not breach the contract of employment. Accordingly, the complaint fails.

CA 8435 – 002

I prefer the respondent’s evidence in relation to this claim. I find that following the counterfeit money incident they, because the complainant was new to the business, made the correct decision to counsel him in relation to the situation and to give him a refresher training course. At all stages the respondent acted in a professional way towards the complainant. I do not find the evidence of the complainant, that his manager swore at him and called him “an idiot incompetent useless shit” credible.

I also note that the complainant did not lodge a grievance. There is a duty on him to exhaust the internal process prior to seeking redress from a third party. He failed to do so.

In all of the circumstances I find that the complaint fails. Accordingly, I will not be making any recommendations.