FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TUATH HOUSING ASSOCIATION (REPRESENTED BY ADARE HRM) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1.Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No. ADJ-00022645 CA-00029571-001,002. The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 15 September 2020in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 25 June 2021.
This is an appeal by Ms Violeta Cucovic (‘the Complainant’) from two recommendations of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00022645/CA-00029371-001 & CA-00029371-002, dated 8 September 2020) under the Industrial Relations Act 1969. These matters were heard by the Court together with a related appeal under the Employment Equality Act 1998 (ADE/20/103). The Complainant’s Notice of Appeal was received by the Court on 15 September 2020. Factual Matrix Tuath Housing Association (‘the Respondent’) is a not-for-profit organisation and an approved voluntary housing association that provides housing for families and individuals, including those with special needs. The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as an accounts assistant on a twelve-month fixed-term contract to provide cover for a permanent employee availing herself of protective leave. The Complainant’s employment commenced on 7 May 2019 and was terminated by the Respondent on 10 May 2019. Her contract of employment provided for a six-month probationary period. On the morning of 10 May 2019, the Complainant attended for work in the normal way. As part of the induction and probationary process, she was asked to attend a meeting with the Respondent’s Finance Operation Supervisor that morning. The latter requested the Complaint to come to a meeting room but the Complainant declined to do so, stating that she preferred to have the meeting conducted in the open plan area in which her desk was situated. When her Supervisor attempted to engage with the Complainant at her desk, the Complainant allegedly addressed her in a loud and inappropriate manner. It appears the Complainant was upset by the fact that the Respondent hadn’t returned a copy of her employment contract signed on behalf of the Respondent notwithstanding an undertaking given by the HR Manager that the signed copy would be with her that week. The Complainant had emailed the HR Manager earlier that morning to enquire as to when she would receive her finalised contract. A meeting did subsequently take place a little later that morning in the canteen. The Finance Operation Supervisor was accompanied by her line manager – the Finance Manager – as she had concerns following her earlier encounter with the Complainant. It appears that the Complainant was very focused on receiving her contract at that meeting and became vocal and agitated about this matter notwithstanding the Finance Manager’s assurance that the signed contract would be available the following Monday. The Complainant returned to her desk but was asked a short time later to attend a further meeting in the canteen. At this meeting she was informed that a decision had been taken by the Respondent’s Deputy Chief Executive to terminate her employment with immediate effect. The Complainant was asked to gather her belongings and to leave the building without delay. When she initially declined to do so, the Respondent suggested that they would call An Garda S?ochána if necessary. The Complainant, in fact, did so herself, using her own mobile phone, before leaving the office. A Garda called to the Respondent’s premises some hours later. Complaints under the Industrial Relations Act 1969 The Complaint firstly takes issue with the manner in which she was summarily dismissed without any regard to fair procedures. She also complains that the manner in which she was treated by management on 10 May 2019 constituted bullying. The Adjudication Officer upheld the first aspect of the Complainant’s complaint and recommended payment of compensation of €1,233.00 (equivalent to two weeks’ pay) for the Respondent’s failure to adhere to fair procedures. The Court sees no reason to upset the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation in this regard. The Recommendation is, therefore, upheld and for the reasons outlined by the Adjudication Officer. The Court finds that the events of the morning of 10 May 2019 – in particular the meetings that took place between the Complainant and management on that date – cannot be characterised as bullying of the Complainant within the meaning of the HSA Code of Practice. The Court also, for that reason, affirms the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation and the Complainant’s appeal therefrom fails. The Court so decides.
NOTE Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Therese Hickey, Court Secretary. |
