ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION & RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00004695
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Worker | A Dry Cleaners |
Representatives | None | None |
Complaint and dispute:
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-00006638-001 | 25 August 2016 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00006638-003 | 25 August 2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 4 May 2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following the referral of the complaint and dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint and dispute.
Background:
This is one of a number of adjudications involving the respondent and family members of the complainant. The respondent operates a dry cleaners and took over the business in 2014. The complainant resigned her employment on the 28th June 2015. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant outlined that there had been considerable bullying in the respondent workplace. She worked Saturdays and a few hours during the week. The manager would make sexual comments in front of staff members, customers and her. Her mother and sister had both made complaints about the manager and nothing was done. There was, therefore, no point in her making a complaint. She said that the company director was never there so she had to deal with the manager. The complainant said that she left her employment on the 28th June 2015 as it had become unbearable and she could not deal with it any more. She called the company director to tell him that she was leaving. She was too afraid to say it directly to the manager and raised this with the company director, who just said “okay”.
The complainant gave examples of bullying. She said that when the dry cleaner finished work, she would be left on her own between 2pm and 6pm. The manager would enter the premises, drunk. He might approach her and ask her a question when topless or doing up his zip. He would mimic strangulation and asked the complainant whether she knew what a rape kit was. The manager spoke often about the Graham Dwyer trial.
The complainant said that she commenced employment on the 20th December 2012 and was in employment at the time of the transfer in 2014. She had not received a statement of the terms of her employment.
The complainant said that she had the same hours at her new employment and was paid less. It was also less convenient as she had a longer commute. The manager could get angry and she did not want to see him. She just wanted to leave. She never had a contract of employment at any stage.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The company director said that the complainant had never raised a complaint with him. He had no idea of the issues she outlined. He said that the complainant’s mother, a colleague, had asked for more hours to be given to the complainant in May 2015 as she was finishing college. The complainant later left for another role with more hours. She confirmed her resignation in an email of the 8th July 2015. In respect of the complainant’s contract of employment, the company director said that staff had informed him that they all had contracts supplied by the transferor. He had asked for a copy of this contract, but this was never supplied to him.
The company director said that the complainant left to take up another job. She never indicated why she was leaving, i.e. if it was because of sexual harassment. Her parents, both employees of the respondent, never raised this issue. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00006638-001 This is a dispute referred pursuant to the Industrial Relations Act. It relates to serious issues of sexual harassment arising in the workplace. The respondent denies that these events happened. Having considered the evidence, I find that the events occurred as described by the complainant. I reach this finding because of the consistency and plausibility of her account. Given that this is an Industrial Relations referral, I recommend redress of €750.
CA-00006639-002 The complainant resigned on the 28th June 2015 and referred this complaint pursuant to the Terms of Employment (Information) Act on the 25th August 2016. The complaint was therefore made outside of the maximum limitation period provided by the Workplace Relations Act and it is not well founded. |
Recommendation and decision:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
CA-00006639-001 I recommend that the respondent pay to the complainant redress of €750 in this dispute referred pursuant to the Industrial Relations Act.
CA-00006639-002 I find that this complaint made pursuant to the Terms of Employment (Information) Act is not well founded as it was made over 12 months after the end of the complainant’s employment. |
Dated: 7th June, 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Key Words:
Industrial Relations Act Terms of Employment (Information) Act |