FULL RECOMMENDATION
PARTIES : A RETAIL OPERATOR DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1.Compensation for Missing Payments and Other Issues 1. The Worker contends that she was subject to unfair dismissal, bullying and harassment and wage deductions by the Company and remains at a loss as a result. 2. The Worker contends that she was unable to attend investigation and disciplinary meetings arranged by her employer because said meetings were scheduled during her working hours. The Worker also contends that the Company used an incorrect email address to send her notifications of said meetings and tried to contact her via an old phone number that she no longer used. Company’s Arguments: 1. The Company reject the claim that the worker was unfairly dismissed or that she was bullied or harassed. The company concedes to administrative errors which resulted in reduced wages payments to the Worker on 2 occasions. These errors were rectified quickly and in full. 2. The Company contend that the email address and phone number they used to contact the worker were correct and that every effort was made to keep the Worker informed throughout the investigation, disciplinary and appeal process via email, telephone and post. RECOMMENDATION: The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties. As a preliminary matter the employer submitted that the decision of the Court should be anonymised. The worker raised no objection to that request. The Court noted that its normal practice in decisions made under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 is to anonymise the identity of the worker. In those circumstances, a request to also anonymise the identity of the employer is not, in the view of the Court, unreasonable. The employer will therefore be identified in this decision as ‘A Retail Operator’ and the worker as ‘a Worker’. The worker contends that she has been bullied and harassed and unfairly dismissed. In addition, she contends that wages have been withheld from her. At its hearing the Court established that her contention as regards withholding of wages has previously been dealt with by way of a decision of an Adjudication Officer of the Workplace Relations Commission made under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. The Court advised the parties that a referral made under Section 20(1) of the Industrial relations Act, 1969 cannot be treated as an appeal of a decision of an Adjudication Officer’s decision made under the 1991 Act and neither can the Court issue a Decision under the 1969 Act dealing with the same matters which have been decided under statute by an Adjudication Officer in accordance with the provisions of the 1991 Act. The Court heard no submission detailing acts which could be construed as bullying or harassment of the worker by any individual employee of the employer or by the employer itself. In those circumstances the Court does not consider it appropriate to issue any decision in relation to this element of the matter before it. The employer confirmed to the Court that the worker had been dismissed and details were supplied of a process of investigation, disciplinary hearing and appeal which resulted in that dismissal. The worker did not participate at all stages of the process outlined and contended that issues had arisen as regards communication by telephone and e-mail with her. The Court has reflected on the detail contained in the submissions of the parties and does not accept that the worker was unaware of any allegation made against her, of the investigation as it was conducted, of the disciplinary hearing or of the appeal arrangements. The Court concludes that she was afforded a full opportunity to know any allegation made against her, to hear any case made against her and to make any case in her own defence. Similarly, she was made aware of an opportunity to appeal the decision to dismiss her and to be heard in relation to that appeal. The worker did appeal the decision to dismiss her and did participate in a hearing of her appeal. In all of the circumstances the Court cannot find a basis to intervene in the decision to dismiss. The Court recommends that both parties accept that the employment relationship has totally broken down and is irreparable. The Court does not recommend the payment of compensation as claimed. The Court so decides.
NOTE |
