Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Employee

Fast Food Restaurant

Representatives

Self          

Operations Manager

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-00032351-004

20/11/2019

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00032351-005

20/11/2019

The complainant was employed as a crew member in a fast food outlet from 10 to 28 October 2019.   He worked 15 hours per week and his gross pay was €316.50 per fortnight. The two issues in dispute relate to bullying and meal allowances.   He referred the issues in dispute to the Workplace Relations Commission on 20 November 2019.

The complainant applied for a job as a crew member at a fast food outlet. By email of 08 October 2019 he was offered the position.   He attended the orientation programme on 10 October 2019. He stated he was permitted to be late for the orientation because of college commitments.

The complainant submitted a statement of the issues in dispute with his complaint form on 20 November 2019. He subsequently sent emails dated 03, 12, 13, 19 January 2020 and 01, 12, 13 (three emails) and 18 February 2020 with some further details and comments on several items.

The dispute in relation to bullying concerned an interaction between the complainant and the business manager. It was alleged that in breach of the respondent’s food policy the complainant had taken a can of coke and a cookie. The complainant stated that the business manager shouted at him in the staff room for two minutes and used the word ‘bullshit’ regarding a statement he had made.   He stated the manager was rude and unprofessional and did not console him when he cried.

The dispute in relation to the meal allowance concerned the system that the respondent operated.   The respondent provides meals to employees for consumption in the break room during their scheduled break.   The system is a 4-point plan where an employee may choose items from the core menu, premium menu, drink item or side item. Three points are allowed in a 6.5-hour shift and four points in a shift over 7 hours. The complainant stated his belief that he should have been allowed more food and drink than was provided in the 4-point plan. He had worked at another outlet with a different franchisee and there he was provided with ‘proper’ meals.

The complainant had received his contract of employment at the orientation session on 10 October 2019.   The employee handbook had been sent to him by email on 08 October 2019. However, he stated that he did not have time to read the handbook and he was not aware there was a grievance policy. He signed the documents presented to him at the orientation session but did not read them. He stated that the woman who delivered the orientation was not very nice.

The complainant expressed his views on the respondents pay rates, policies and procedures, training, uniform standards, scholarship scheme and a news report of a personal injuries action in the various emails submitted in January and February 2020.   He stated that he did not agree with many of the respondent’s policies, particularly the uniform policy that required employees to be clean shaven. He stated he was sent home to shave on 27 October 2019. He did not return that day as getting the bus home and then returning to work again would have cost him money. He sent a complaint by email to the business manager stating there was no good reason to have this policy.

The complainant stated that there should be better training provided to all employees.

The respondent engaged the complainant to work as a general crew person in one of their outlets.   He attended the orientation on 10 October 2019 where he received and signed his contract of employment which included the terms and conditions of employment. The respondent stated that there was no correspondence from the complainant requesting permission to be late for the orientation.

The complaint of bullying was never raised by the complainant when he was an employee of the respondent. On 24 October 2019 the complainant was working a shift when he was observed by another employee removing food from the service area and from the manager’s office. The employee informed the manager about this incident. The manager reviewed the CCTV and observed the complainant hiding food under his work apron and removing a soft drink from the manager’s office. The manager spoke with the complainant and asked him if he was aware of the food policy that was in place. The complainant said he was aware of the policy, but he did not agree with it. The manager spoke in a calm way and as the complainant was a new employee he explained the reasons why the respondent had these controls in place. The manager used this as a developmental coaching session.

The dispute concerning the meal allowance concerns the complainant’s view that employees should be allowed more food when at work. The respondent provides employees with a meal during their scheduled work hours. Employees are given a choice of choosing items from a core menu, a premium item, a drink item or a side item. Points are allocated to items e.g. one point for a core menu item, two points for a premium menu item. The free food is to be consumed in the break room during the allocated break time.   The policy was explained at orientation. The complainant did not raise any question about the policy until the day the manager spoke with him about removing the food and drink item when he indicated that he did not agree with the policy.

The uniform and personal appearance policy requires all employees to meet a specified standard.   For example, full clean uniform – hat, name tag and belt must be worn – no jewellery, earrings, studs, watches or rings may be worn. Employees must shave daily. On 27 October 2019 the assistant manager asked the complainant to shave before commencing work. He left and did not return for his scheduled shift. The policy had been explained at the orientation. The complainant did not agree with the policy and later the same day he sent a complaint to the manager by email.

The operations manager arranged to meet with the complainant on 28 October 2019. The business manager from another outlet was present at the meeting. The operations manager discussed with the complainant his comments about the uniform and personal appearance policy and the food policy. The complainant made several references to conditions that operated by another franchisee. Although the complainant had stated on his application form that he had not worked for the organisation before, it was subsequently established that he had worked at another outlet in April 2019. At no stage during the meeting did the complainant raise any issue about being shouted at or being bullied. It was clear that although he was aware of the terms and conditions of employment he did not agree with them or with the policies and procedures within the company. Considering that it was decided that it was best for the company and the complainant to end the employment relationship.

The respondent stated that fair procedures were followed. The complainant had been provided with all the terms and conditions of employment, had received the employee handbook and he had agreed to abide by all the policies when he signed the relevant documents at the orientation programme.

CA-00032351-004 - Bullying

The complainant worked six shifts for the employer between 10 and 28 October 2019. He confirmed that he received a copy of the employee handbook by email. He attended the orientation programme on 10 October 2019 at which he signed his contract of employment. He also signed a document confirming that he had been informed about various policies and procedures, including the pay, uniform, appearance and food policy.   At the hearing the employee stated that he did not read the employee handbook.

The complainant alleges he was bullied by his manager when he shouted at him for taking a cookie and a can of coke. He alleges that the manager was rude and unprofessional and failed to console him when he got upset. The manager denies shouting at the complainant and stated that he spoke to him in a calm way and asked if he was aware of the food policy that was in place.   There is a conflict between the parties as to what happened at that meeting and there were no witnesses.   The complainant made it clear at the hearing that he did not agree with the food policy.

The established definition of bullying is contained in S.I. No. 17/2002 Industrial Relations Act, 1990 (Code of Practice Detailing Procedures for Addressing Bullying in the Workplace) (Declaration) Order 2002. “Workplace bullying is repeated inappropriate behaviour, direct or indirect, whether verbal, physical or otherwise, conducted by one or more persons against another or others, at the place of work and/or in the course of employment, which could reasonably be regarded as undermining the individual’s right to dignity at work. An isolated incident of the behaviour described in this definition may be an affront to dignity at work but, as a once off incident, is not considered to be bullying.”

The allegation of bullying here relates to a single incident. I note the manager being aware he was dealing with a new employee asked if the employee was aware of the food policy. I note that there was no disciplinary sanction imposed because of this incident. There may have been raised voices or even the use of an inappropriate word, but a single incident does not constitute bullying which is defined as repeated inappropriate behaviour.

The parties gave conflicting accounts about what took place on 24 October 2019. The complainant acknowledged that he did not answer truthfully a question on his job application form. He ticked the NO box to state he had not worked for the fast food organisation before. He confirmed in his emails and at the hearing that he had worked for another outlet of the fast food organisation. Such action raises a question about the credibility of the complainant’s statements. Given that there was no action taken by the manager about this incident, other than explaining the food policy I regard the manager’s account as more credible than the complainant’s account.

The complainant stated he did not read the handbook. He did attend the orientation and did sign the crew orientation checklist confirming that he had been informed of all the policies listed. In response to a question about what he would regard as a satisfactory outcome to this dispute the complainant replied better training.  

I was provided with copies of the relevant policies by the respondent and I am satisfied that they are clear and well written. The orientation programme as described by the respondent is a well-structured programme. I recommend that future employees be provided with the handbook at least one week before the orientation day. In that way they will have enough time to read the various policies in advance of the orientation programme. That would give them the opportunity to clarify any issues at the orientation programme and allow then to commence work with a better understanding of the respondent’s policies.

CA-00032351-005 – Meal Allowances

The complainant stated that he took a cookie and can of coke and he was made to feel this was okay as he saw another member of staff do the same. He stated that he did not think it was fair that employees were allocated food on a points system. He had worked in another outlet for another franchisee and there you could order what you wanted within reason.

The respondent has in place a clear four-point meal plan. A copy of the staff notice, dated 31 January 2019, was provided with their submission. The employer provides staff with a benefit of free food to be consumed at work during their break time. The employer is entitled to set out their food policy and how such operates.   Employees are not required to take the food made available to them. The complainant in his submission and at the hearing stated he did not agree with the food policy. He compared the food policy to the food policy that operated by a previous employer.   One franchisee is not bound to offer employees the same benefits offered by another franchisee. The food policy operated by the respondent is clear and available to all employees. The complainant’s issue here is that he simply did not agree with the policy. He was given information about the policy at orientation and when he took the cookie and can of coke the policy was explained to him for a second time. I accept the complainant thinks the policy should be different, but the policy is a matter of the respondent to decide.   The policy is clear, and employees are free to avail themselves of the benefit or not. I do not recommend any change to the food policy as set out in the memo dated 31 January 2019.

CA-00032351-004 - Bullying

The orientation programme as described by the respondent is a well-structured programme. Future employees could be provided with more time to read the various policies in advance of the orientation programme. That would give them the opportunity to clarify any issues at the orientation programme and allow then to commence work with a better understanding of the respondent’s policies.

I recommend that future employees be provided with the handbook at least one week before the orientation day

CA-00032351-005 – Meal Allowances

The complainant did not agree with the respondent’s policy. I accept the complainant thinks the policy should be different, but the policy is a matter of the respondent to decide. The policy is clear, and employees are free to avail themselves of the benefit or not. I do not recommend any change to the food policy as set out in the memo dated 31 January 2019.

Bullying

Meal Allowances

Food Policy