ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00023475
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Commis Chef /Catering Assistant | A Hotel |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts | CA-00030041-001 | 02/08/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 09/12/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
It should be noted that the Adjudicator wrote on the 23rd January 2020, post the Hearing, effectively recommending local discussions between the Parties. This Adjudication Recommendation is a formal follow up to this.
Background:
The issue in contention was the alleged Unfair Dismissal of a Catering Assistant by a Hotel. |
1: Summary of Worker’s Case:
The Employment commenced on the 5th June 2020. It was part of a Work placement from IT Tallaght. The work was busy, and the Employee worked hard to learn as much as she could of the Hotel Restaurant Industry. However, on the 6th of July 2020 she noticed that she had not been rostered for any further shifts in the Kitchen. Getting an explanation proved difficult as the Overall Manager, Mr. Xa, was hard to contact. Eventually the explanation was given, following the intervention of her mother, that “She did not fit in”. This was a devastating blow to a young worker beginning in the Hotel Catering business. Her self confidence took a major blow. There was no warning given and the ending of the employment was without any procedures or even a chance to offer an explanation/ tell her side of the story to Hotel Management. |
2: Summary of Respondent’s Case:
It was obvious to the Employer, from early on in the Employment, that the Worker was very slow about her work. In a busy Hotel Kitchen this was always going to be a problem. The Management let things go for approximately a month in the hope that things would improve with experience. It was important to note that the Worker was not formally dismissed, was paid for the August Bank Holiday and was invited to engage in the Hotel’s Formal Grievance procedure. This was proposed to be handled by an Independent HR Consultant, Mr. David O’Reilly. The Hotel General Manager, Ms Xb was sympathetic to the Worker, was conscious of her young age and felt that the Hotel Grievance procedure could have become a Career Counselling/Advice section to a young person beginning in the Hotel Business. The Hotel were still anxious to be on good terms with the Worker. |
3: Recommendation and Conclusions:
3:1 General Discussion. The Complainant was represented by her mother at the Hearing and the Hotel by the General Manager Ms. Xb and the HR Consultant, Mr. O’Reilly. It was clear that the Worker and her Representative wanted a full discussion with the Hotel Management to, in so many words, “clear the air” and go some way towards restoring the self confidence of the young person concerned. A formal “Penalty” against the hotel was not being explicitly sought. The Hotel representatives were not averse to this. The Hotel HR Consultant offered to facilitate a meeting between the Parties. He recognised, that while he was retained by the Hotel, he could in the special circumstances adopt as Independent a role as possible to seek an outcome of benefit to the Worker. This would be in the form of Career Guidance and whatever assistance the Hotel could offer to the Young Worker in terms of her future career in the Hotel business. Following some general discussion, facilitated by the Adjudication Officer, it was agreed that the parties would meet almost immediately to, hopefully, achieve this. It was noted that the matter was under the Industrial Relations Act,1969 and a revisit to the WRC, if necessary by way of a new claim was still possible before the twelve-month deadline expired. 3:2 Adjudication Recommendation. The offer from the HR Consultant to in effect act as an Independent Facilitator should be taken up by the Parties. An early meeting is to be arranged. The HR Consultant has an established professional reputation and his assurances of Independence, were accepted by the Adjudicator. The Worker is a young person starting out in the Employment world. The work place, particularly in the Catering/Hotel business has many ups and downs. The advice and hopefully good guidance from the Hotel concerned together with the insights of the HR Consultant should be of good assistance. It is to be hoped that what began as a negative confidence knocking experience can be made into a positive learning episode.
|
4: Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I Recommend that the Parties, facilitated by the HR Consultant. Mr. David O’Reilly meet immediately to clear the air and give the Worker an explanation for events and positive Career advice that will benefit her in her future Career.
|
Dated: 24-04-2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Key Words:
|