Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Retail Supervisor

Retail Grocer

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-00026876-001

07/03/2019

The Worker is employed since 1st August 2006 and currently holds the position of Supervisor. She is paid €661.00 per week. She raised grievances relating to how she was treated by the Employer regarding the provision of seating during pregnancy, allegation of theft, removal of personal items and loss of income resulting from work related illness and absence from work.

In October 2018 the Worker was approached by the Owner MJ and effectively accused her or a co-worker of pocketing a customer’s change valued at €72.00. She denied this and requested the owner to check the CCTV footage, he agreed and said he would also look at the cash register report. The following day the Assistant Manager was informed by the Worker of what had happened. He offered to look into it. The following day he informed her that the money had been found but the owner had instructed him not to tell her. She was pregnant at the time and became very stressed by this false allegation. On 26th November 2018 upon returning from her break she noticed that a number of her personal items (a bottle of water, perfume and hand sanitiser) had been removed. She asked the owner’s partner about this and she replied that she had no knowledge of them. She asked the store manager and he was unaware of them. Later that day she found them in a bin. The owner’s partner admitted to the store manager that she had put them there. This again caused her stress. She took a chair from the canteen to use when she got tired due to her pregnancy. She placed the chair at the end of the counter near the cash register. She was comfortable doing this because it formed part of a recommendation from a risk assessment carried out by the Employer in relation to her pregnancy. She was instructed by the owner to put the chair back in the canteen. This also caused her stress. She was diagnosed with work related stress and certified unfit for work for four weeks during the month of December. She was not paid during this period and did not get her Public Holiday entitlements. On 7th December 2018 her union wrote to the owner requesting a meeting, but they got no response. They repeated this request but got no response. So, the case was referred to the WRC.

It is her position that she has been treated very badly especially given that she was pregnant at the time. She has given long service to this company. She was shocked to be accused of taking customers money, having her personal belongings dumped in the bin, including drinking water, also the chair removed. She became unwell and suffered a loss of wages amounting to €2,644. She is also seeking the payment for the Public Holiday.  

The Employer did not attend. Their representative wrote to the WRC to advise that they have a grievance procedure in place and they invited the Worker to use this in the first instance, which would not prejudice their right to use external mechanisms at a later stage. They then advised that they would not attend the hearing.

I note that the Worker’s union wrote to the Employer twice requesting a meeting, but this was declined.

I note that the Employer does not recognise the union for representational purposes. It was possible to meet on a personal basis without any form of recognition being granted.

I find that these matters that gave grave concern to the Worker involved the owner and his partner in particular.

I find that this has made the application of the grievance procedure more difficult to apply.

I note that the procedure provides that an external person may be appointed to investigate matters.

I find that the Employer could have ‘pointed’ the Worker in the right direction when her union requested a meeting.

I find that matters have been compounded by the fact that the Worker was pregnant.

Based on the uncontested position of the Worker I find as follows:

I find it wholly unacceptable to make an accusation against an employee without carrying out an investigation firstly.

I find it wholly unacceptable that the owner should inform his manager that the money had been found but not to tell the accused.

I find it wholly unacceptable to throw personal items including a bottle of water in the bin, especially when this belonged to a person who was pregnant.

I find that it was then compounded by the denials of the partner of the owner.

I find it unacceptable that the Employer should remove the chair from the Worker knowing that she was pregnant and failed to have any discussion with her given the fact that they had carried out a risk assessment, which provided for the chair.

I note the Workers position that as a result she was diagnosed with work-related stress and was absent for four weeks.

I note that she was not paid for that absence.

I note that she was not paid for the Public Holiday.

I recommend that the grievance procedure is amended to provide for an independent person to investigate matters that relate to the owner and his partner.

I recommend that the Employer should acknowledge the mishandling of removal of the personal items and the chair.

I recommend that the Employer adheres to the outcomes of the risk assessments for pregnant workers.

I recommend that the Employer accepts the mishandling of the alleged till shortage.

I recommend that the Employer accepts that their handling of the matters caused the Worker to be absent from work which cost her four week’s wages.

I recommend that they reimburse her with the amount deducted amounting to €2,664.00.

I recommend that they pay her compensation for the Public Holiday.

These payments should be made within six weeks of the date below.

Grievances concerning false accusations and handling of a pregnant worker