Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Warehouse Operative (2)

A Wholesaler

Representatives

Sherwin O'Riordan Solicitors

IBEC

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00027924-001

23/04/2019

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00027924-002

23/04/2019

There are two complaints; the first of constructive unfair dismissal and the second of racial discrimination contrary to the Employment Equality Acts.

(These have also been submitted separately against the respondent under a different company name).

The complainant says that he had been the victim of racist conduct by a co-worker.

This was raised at the level of the workplace, initially informally and then, on December 3rd, 2018 by means of a formal complaint. The complainant was not entirely satisfied with the investigation which followed although it did uphold his complaint and resulted in disciplinary action against the perpetrator.

However, despite a request that he would not have to be in contact with the perpetrator this did not happen. Despite raising the matter and seeking certain changes to his place of assignment or shifts so that he did not have to come into contact with the perpetrator nothing was done.

Accordingly, he resigned. He states October 31st, 2018 as the date when the discriminatory act occurred.

The respondent disputes the validity of the complaints.

The complainant did make a complaint which was fully investigated by the respondent and upheld in February 2019. Disciplinary action was taken against the subject of the complaint.

In March 2019 the complainant himself was the subject of disciplinary proceedings as a result of unauthorised absence from work. At that meeting he said that his absence was a result of not wishing to work with the person against whom he had made the complaint.

He was advised to speak to his manager or the HR department about this or take steps under the respondent’s Grievance Procedure.

He did not do so nor did he raise any other complaint about the matter.

In fact, the steps taken by the respondent against the person complained of were effective and there was no repetition of the conduct complained of.

He resigned on March 31st, 2019.

In his letter of resignation, he stated the reason for his resignation as being

‘due to the fact that I have found a career in a new line of work which requires me to leave. I appreciate my time at the company and all the opportunities it has brought me’.

He went on to offer to cooperate with any transitional arrangements necessary in his last week.

He declined the opportunity of an exit interview and now claims that his resignation was prompted by the failure of the company to prevent him ‘coming into contact with staff members of a different race’.

At no stage did the complainant avail of the respondent’s grievance machinery and he had alternatives to resignation which he could have used. Therefore, his complaint of constructive unfair dismissal must fail.

In relation to the complaint under the Employment Equality Act (which is based on the same set of facts) the respondent took immediate and effective steps to bring the conduct complained of to an end and no further liability attaches to it for those actions.

This is an exact duplicate of complaints also submitted against the respondent under a different corporate name.

I have dealt with the substantive complaint in ADJ 21220 under what appears (from the respondent’s headed notepaper) to be the correct designation of its legal title.

Accordingly this complaint is not well founded.

For the reasons set out above complaints CA-00027924-001 and 002 are not well founded.

Duplicate complaint.