Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Worker

Fast food restaurant

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00018924-001

03/05/2018

The worker was employed by the employer from 3 September 2015 until 16 May 2018 when he tendered his resignation.

The dispute concerns an interaction between the worker and the Store Manager which left the worker feeling upset and uncomfortable about working with the Store Manager again.

The worker asserts that on Wednesday 14 February 2018, he arrived for work 15 minutes late. He says that he phoned the Store Manager to let them know that he would be late.

The worker alleges that when he reached his place of employment, the Store Manager asked him if he was ok and when he said that he was not they called him into the office.   According to the worker, the Store Manager told him that they had a business to run and that they had no time for people being late.

The worker contends that when he explained that he was late because his alarm had not gone off, the Store Manager replied that they were “not his Mammy”.

The worker submits that that comment was completely out of line as the Store Manager knew that the worker’s mother had passed away just nine weeks previously.

The worker says that he when he replied “I know you’re not, my Mam is dead”, the Store Manager replied under their breath “that isn’t my fault”.

The worker says that he was deeply upset and that he was sent home.

The worker submitted a copy of an email which he sent to the employer’s Human Resources Consultant on the day of the incident (14 February 2018) outlining what had happened and explaining that he did not feel comfortable working with the Store Manager again but that he did not wish to leave his job.

The worker submitted a further email which he sent to the Human Resources Consultant on 15 February 2018 saying that he had forgotten to add that the Store Manager had threatened to tell other managers to send the worker home “if he came in with a face like that again”.

The worker feels that this was completely out of line as the Store Manager was aware that the worker was suffering from depression as a result of his mother’s passing.

The worker submitted a response to his emails dated 15 February from the HR Consultant arranging a meeting between the worker and a member of the HR Team on 19 February.

The worker also submitted a copy of a formal complaint against the Store Manager dated 16 February 2018 in which he again outlined what had occurred on 14 February 2018 and in which he raised a number of additional issues relating to rotas, his role in the organisation and a request to be supplied with protective gloves.

On foot of the complaint from the worker, the HR Consultant met with him and also facilitated mediation between the worker and the Store Manager. The worker submitted a copy of the mediation agreement which resulted from the mediation meeting.

The worker also submitted further emails from the HR Consultant concerning their efforts to arrange a follow-up meeting. At the Adjudication Hearing, the worker submitted that he had sought advice from the WRC as to whether he should attend the follow-up meeting. According to the worker, the WRC advised him that he did not have to attend the follow-up meeting because he had already submitted a claim to the WRC.

The employer submits that the worker was supplied with the employer’s policies and procedures on Grievance and Discipline and Bullying and Harassment when he commenced employment and during his employment.

The employer submits that a member of the HR Team met with the worker on 19 February 2018 and outlined all possible options for resolving the issues in dispute. According to the employer, the worker opted for mediation.

On 20 February 2018, the HR Team facilitated mediation between the worker and the Store Manager and a mediation agreement between the parties was drawn up.

According to the employer, the worker did not raise any further issues following mediation.

On 30 March 2018, the employer emailed the worker to arrange a follow-up appointment on 4 April 2018. The employer submits that the meeting did not go ahead because the worker was on sick leave.

The employer submits that a number of further attempts were made to reschedule the follow-up meeting but that this was not possible due to the worker’s absence on sick leave.  

The employer submitted a copy of an email to the worker dated 2 May 2018 in which the worker was informed that the HR Consultant could not meet him unless his doctor certified that they were happy for the worker to attend a meeting and that it would not interfere with the worker’s recovery.

The worker terminated his employment with the employer effective from 19 May 2018. The employer submitted an email dated 21 May 2018 from the HR Consultant to the worker. In that email the HR Consultant noted that they were aware that the worker had an issue which he wanted to discuss with the HR Consultant.   They reminded the worker of the offer in their email of 2 May 2018 where they indicated their willingness to meet with the worker once his GP saw fit and it did not interfere with his recovery.

The HR Consultant went on to remind the worker of the employer’s open door policy which was in place for all employees who had a problem, issue or concern. The HR Consultant offered the worker an extended offer to come and have a chat with them about the issues which led to the worker’s resignation from his employment. The HR Consultant also attached details of the employer’s Open Door Policy.

In reaching my conclusion on the issues in dispute, I am guided by the Labour Court Recommendation INT 1014, in which the Labour Court stated:

"The Court is not prepared to insert itself into the procedural process in a situation where the dispute resolution procedures have been bypassed."

I note the worker’s assertion that he was advised by the WRC that he was not required to attend the mediation follow-up meeting which the employer was attempting to arrange.   As the worker was unable to provide the name of the WRC staff member to whom he spoke or precise details of the advice he received from the WRC, I find that I cannot take this assertion into account when making my findings in this case.

I find that by not attending the mediation follow-up meeting, the worker did not exhaust all internal procedures in an effort to resolve the issues in dispute and, therefore, I find that this referral is not well founded.

Subsequent to the submission of his claim, the worker wrote to the WRC seeking compensation for loss of earnings during his period of sick leave and compensation for work related depression.

The employer said that they only became aware of the worker’s work related depression in the context of the WRC referral. The employer indicated they were not provided with medical certification from the worker during his employment to indicate that he was suffering from work related depression.

The worker said that he had not submitted medical certs detailing his work related depression during his employment as he was concerned about confidentiality.

The employer disputed the worker’s assertion and said that procedures were in place to ensure that all medical certs are handled in a confidential manner.

As the worker did not raise the issue of work related depression with the employer during his employment with them, I find that the worker’s claim for compensation is not well founded as internal procedures were not invoked.

I find that this dispute is not well founded as the worker did not exhaust internal procedures.