Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Part-time Receptionist

A Distillery Company

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts

CA-00015400-001

27/10/2017

The complainant commenced employment as a part-time receptionist on July 19th 2017 and she was dismissed three weeks later on August 8th. She complains that her dismissal was unfair.

At the opening of the hearing, the complainant explained that she applied for a permanent part-time job as a receptionist and she was interviewed by a recruitment agency.   She expected the work to amount to around 24 hours per week, based on three eight-hour shifts. She accepted the job at €11.00 per hour. She was also working part-time in a concert venue.

The complainant said that she took the job with the respondent as it was an interesting project involving the opening of a new enterprise in a heritage building. As she has a degree in history, she was interested in the work. When she accepted the job, she thought she might leave her current job altogether to work in the new enterprise, but she decided to continue working there at the same time to see how things worked out in the new role.

Before she started work, the complainant said that she was sent a roster from July 17th until August 15th. As the business had not yet opened to the public, the roster was changed and she was asked to start on July 19th.   For the first two days of her employment, she worked eight-hour shifts, but then she worked five shifts comprising afternoon and evening work from 3.00pm to 8.00pm, 4.00pm to 9.00pm and 3.30pm to 8.30pm. She said that, when she was interviewed, there was no discussion about evening work. Apart from the change in her roster, she said that the work she was asked to do wasn’t what she was hired to do. She was expected to move furniture, empty and fill a dishwasher and collect glasses at the end of receptions. She said that she and other staff were asked to clean a manager’s office and she also did hoovering, dusting and cleaning bathrooms.

As the business was a new enterprise, in the early weeks before it opened to the public, receptions were held for invited guests. The complainant said that she was asked to hand out leaflets, operate audio-visual equipment and engage with guests. She was also assigned to working in the gift shop even though she was not trained on the electronic point of sale (EPOS) process. She said she suffers from a bad knee and, to endure standing on the concrete floor of the building for long periods, she had to invest in special shoes.

The complainant said that her last day at work was Thursday, July 27th when she was due to start at 3.00pm. She got a text message to tell her to come in at 4.00pm instead. She was not rostered to work on Friday July 28th but she was rostered on from 9.30am to 5.30pm on Saturday, Sunday and Monday, July 29th, 30th and 31st. However, when she was at work on Thursday, July 27th, she was informed by the assistant manager that the facility was not going to open at the weekend. In response to an e mail from the assistant manager thanking everyone for working hard the previous week, she said that she asked for clarification about her roster. She said that she told him she was disappointed with how the roster was working out and asked him how she could be sure that her hours “would not disappear” in the future.

The following week, the complainant said she was rostered for three days for eight hours each day.

On Monday, August 7th, the complainant said she got an e mail from the facility manager, asking her to come in for a chat before her next shift. During this discussion, the manager told her that she wasn’t a good fit with the company, she had too many questions and she seemed unhappy. She was then informed that she was being dismissed and she said the manager walked her to the door.

The manager who attended the hearing said that the complainant was recruited as a part-time casual receptionist and she commenced work on July 19th 2017.  

In defence of the company’s position, the manager said that, before she started work, the complainant attended about 20 hours’ training at the company’s headquarters.   This involved an induction into the method of distilling, training on how to tell the story of the process, a history of the building in which the complainant was assigned to work and training on the EPOS system.

When the complainant was recruited, the facility hadn’t opened to the public and the focus was on what was described as a “soft launch,” with invited guests. These receptions were an opportunity to test out the operation. As the building hadn’t opened, there was no need for a receptionist in the early days and the complainant was expected to “row in” with the other staff to get the place up and running. The manager said that she met with staff and asked them all to “give a hand” and she said that before the opening, they were unsure of how the operation would run.

Examples of rosters were posted on the company’s intranet site with details of how to find a shift.   The manager agreed that rosters were changed at short notice, but she said that the complainant also said that she wasn’t available at certain times, due to her other job. The manager said that when the complainant started on July 19th, she was informed that she would be required to work evening shifts.

On Friday, July 28th, the manager said that the complainant sent an e mail looking for clarification about her job and she told the assistant manager that she also had another job. On July 31st, the manager said that she sent the complainant an email asking her to come in to discuss the roster and how the job was working out.   The complainant replied that she couldn’t come in to a meeting. On August 7th, the complainant sent an e mail to say that she couldn’t come to work on August 8th and 9th, saying she had “made a mistake about my availability.”   She asked for clarification about her job. The manager replied; “I cannot guarantee you fixed hours…if you already have a position with more secure hours I would suggest that you commit to that position due to our current situation.” This referred to the fact that the building had not yet officially opened.

On Tuesday, August 8th, the complainant said that her schedule had changed and she could work the roster after all. Her shift was due to start at 9.30am and she agreed to meet the manager at 9.00am.   The manager said that she explained that it was not yet possible to guarantee hours of work. In response to the question, “are you happy in the job?” the manager said that the complainant replied, “no.”   The manager said that, based on this conversation, and, as the complainant had another job that she was committed to, she told the complainant that it would be better if they “called it a day.”

On Monday, August 14th, the director of finance issued a letter to the complainant, confirming that she would be paid for the hours that she had worked and for a week in lieu of notice. She also received €471 as a good-will gesture, rounding off the total sum to €1,000.

Having considered this dispute, it appears that much of the source of the complainant’s difficulties relate to the fact that the business had not yet officially opened and was in a “testing” phase. From the evidence of the respondent, during the pre-opening events, it appears that it was a question of “all hands on deck,” regardless of the roles that had been assigned. For many, this wouldn’t be a big deal, as the excitement of being involved in a new venture outweighs the stress of being asked to do a variety of jobs.   Others might not feel so enthusiastic, and this was the case with the complainant. For her, the change of opening hours and the requirement to pitch in and to do jobs for which she wasn’t hired or trained was a source of stress. The complainant was also engaged in another job, and, at the hearing, it became evident that it was difficult for her to manage the casual roster offered by the respondent, while she was committed to this job at the same time.

Having established that she wasn’t happy in the job, the manager decided to terminate the complainant’s contract, she was paid for the hours she worked and given a small amount as a goodwill gesture.

It is apparent that the manager in this new enterprise made a judgement call that the job for which the complainant was hired was not suitable for her. It seems that she based this decision on the complainant’s need for clarity about her roster, the fact that she had another job and her concern about being asked to take on tasks not entirely associated with the role of receptionist.

The responsibility to manage the employment relationship falls squarely on the employer and, regardless of the fractious nature of a relationship between them, an employee at risk of dismissal is entitled to the benefit of fair procedures.

As there was no discussion at the meeting on August 8th about the possibility of an agreed exit, the complainant should have been informed of the reasons why her dismissal was being contemplated. As she had very short service, it may not have been appropriate to go through each stage of a disciplinary process; however, the complainant should have been given an opportunity to address the issues that were causing concern. Regardless of how unhappy a person is in a job, no one wants to be dismissed. If the complainant had been clearly informed what was required and if someone had explained to her that the job of receptionist in the respondent company was broader than a standard receptionist’s job, she may have decided to leave of her own accord. Or, she may have accepted the job as it was explained to her. Because of the failure to engage in any procedures, I have to conclude that the dismissal of the complainant was unfair.

Following the termination of her employment, the complainant was given a “good will” payment of €471. This corresponds to more than one week’s pay, which, for three shifts, I estimate to be €352. The complainant also received a week’s pay in lieu of notice. In compensation for her unfair dismissal, I recommend that the respondent pay the complainant a further sum of €352.

Dismissal procedures