ADJ-00017077

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Library Assistant

Council

Representatives

Not Applicable

Keith Irvine Local Government Management Agency (LGMA)

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00022147-001

25/09/2018

Background: The claimant commenced employment as a Library Assistant with the Council (in a probationary capacity) on March 12th, 2018. This employment ended on May 24th, 2018. The claimant’s termination was attributed to her continued absence and non-attendance at work. The claimant contends that her absence and non-attendance were due to the stressful working environment created by her supervisor.

The claimant’s termination was attributed to her continued absence and non-attendance at work. The claimant contends that her absence and non-attendance were due to the stressful working environment created by her supervisor. The claimant elaborated on this stressful relationship, explaining that:

1. Her supervisor discussed her annual leave in a back office in the presence of her colleagues.

2. Her supervisor tried to stop her from taking the 5 days sought, asking ‘if I really needed to be there all the times for the puppies’. The claimant contends that she tried to show flexibility and told her supervisor that if that was a problem, then she would only take Monday and Tuesday as full days and the rest of the days as half days.

3. The supervisor inquired as to why the claimant contacted the Human Resources Dept., when she should have gone through her (i.e. the supervisor) with the queries.

4. The supervisor raised her voice and used threatening body language in the aforementioned exchange.

The claimant also explained that she would have worked at another library/branch, if offered same.

The Council explained that the claimant started work in March 2018 when she was assigned to a specific library. However, the claimant made it clear from the start that she did not want to work there. Following an incident with her line manager, the claimant submitted a complaint to the Senior Executive Librarian, who met with both the claimant and the line manager in an attempt to resolve the issue informally and in accordance with the Grievance Policy. Having carried out a preliminary investigation of the matter it was communicated to the claimant that the issue related to a disagreement and that there were no grounds for an official complaint.

The Council met with the claimant on a number of occasions individually on 12th April and 26th April and also with both the claimant and her line manager together on 10th May in an attempt to resolve the matter and facilitate the claimant’s return to work, however the claimant resisted all attempts and refused to return to work, stating only that they would return to another library elsewhere.

In total the claimant was absent from work for a total of 5 weeks (25 days) within the first 9 weeks of her joining the Council and indicated that she would not return to work to the library where she was assigned. The reason for the absence related solely to the incident with the claimant’s line manager and the claimant was written to on 15th May 2018 concluding ‘there is no reasonable grounds for your continued absence…you are required to report for duty to your assigned library on Friday 18th May 2018…failure to attend, may result in consideration being given to the termination of your contract’.

The Council clearly explained in person and in writing that the claimant was required to return to work and that continued absence could result in termination. An Executive Order was signed on 25th May 2018 whereby ‘Due to…continued absence and non-attendance at work it is proposed to dismiss (the claimant) from the service of the Council with immediate effect’. It was due to this continued absence and non-attendance at work that the Council wrote to the claimant on 25th May 2018 confirming that her contract had been terminated.

Based upon the evidence presented at hearing, it is apparent that the Council followed the appropriate procedures, in an attempt to resolve the aforementioned issues between the claimant and her supervisor. The claimant’s contract of employment was predicated on her continued attendance at work in the designated library, however, the claimant did not want to attend that designation and went absent from work, seeking to return to work in another library. That is, she refused to return to work in the specified location. Notably, the claimant’s contract specifies that the Council: ‘reserves the right to assign you to any premises in use by the Council’. In the course of the hearing, the Council explained that it was ‘100% certain that there were no available posts elsewhere’.

The Council met with the claimant a number of times in an attempt to resolve matters and to facilitate a return to work. The claimant refused to comply and so was informed (both verbally and in writing) that continued absence and non-attendance at work may result in termination. This was done in accordance with the Council’s probation policy and in accord with the Council’s Disciplinary Policy, with specific reference to probationary employees.

At hearing, the claimant noted that she didn’t formally attempt to avail of the Council’s Grievance Procedure.

The claim is not upheld.

Dismissal Probation