Employee

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Maintenance Technician

A meat processing plant

Representatives

  self

Ronnie Lawless, Ibec

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00035586-001

06/04/2020

The employee was employed as a maintenance technician with the employer.  He commenced employment on 09/12/2019.  His gross weekly pay was €781.95.  The employee had several e-mail exchanges with the employers Human Resources department in March 2020 in relation to his self-isolation based on medical advice.  The employee felt that he kept his employer fully updated on his position.  He felt that the exchanges with the Human Resources department were “repeatedly, unprofessional and unwelcomed”.  Following receipt of an e-mail on 2nd April 2020 the employee felt that he was being pressurised to return to work without being medically certified as fit to do so and he tendered his immediate resignation.

The employee commenced working for the employer as a maintenance technician on 09/12/2019.  In March 2020 he was advised to self-isolate by the HSE Covid-19 helpline.  He did not have the “red flag” symptoms but was advised to self-isolate for a few days and if his symptoms got worse, he was advised to make telephone contact with the HSE Live system and he would have a revised triage assessment.   He contacted his employer’s HR department and line manager to inform them of the position.  The employee had difficulty in getting registered with a GP and when he managed to do so he was advised to self-isolate for fourteen days. A series of e-mail exchanges took place with the employer’s HR department in relation to certification and likely return to work date.  The employee submitted that at no stage did the HR representative inquire about his well being or his wife’s well being.  He felt that the exchanges were passive-aggressive and did not display any sense of the employer’s duty of care to him as an employee.  He felt that the HR representative should be a champion of the employers’ policies and provide support to employees particularly at a time when the Covid-19 pandemic was taking place.

He wold have initiated a formal grievance in relation to this but he did not have copy of his employer’s grievance procedure.  At the end of the day, he decided that he would was not sufficiently invested to make his employer aware of something that they should already have taken account.  He decided to resign with immediate effect.  He submitted his dispute to the WRC on 06/04/2020.

The employer is one of the largest pig processer and pig producer in Ireland.  They employ more than 1,200 employees at a number of locations.  In March 2020 they faced significant challenges due to the Covid-19 pandemic.  They were deemed to be an essential service to maintain continuity in the food supply chain.  The employer found themselves in an unprecedented situation and they had an internal crisis management team in place.  They engaged with all the relevant services to ensure that they provided a safe place of work and to prevent the spread of Covid-19 to employees and the wider community.

The employee contacted the HR Manager/Covid Manager on 16th March 2020 to advise that he was not feeling well.  He was advised to contact his GP and follow all guidance given by them.  He subsequently advised that he was instructed to go for a Covid-19 test and this would take several days to arrange.  After fifteen days the employee advised the employer that he was not a priority for testing and was available to return to work when his self-isolation period had ended.  A return to work certificate was required and the employee advised that the return date was 06/04/2020 and not 02/04/2020.

At this time the employer had an absence rate of around 75% and they required up-to-date information and the Human Resources Manager was responsible for Covid Management and contacting all employees who were absent from work.

The employer submits that there was no indication that the HR manager was “acting outside of reasonable norm” but was ensuring that the protocols in place as a result of COvid-19 were fully complied with in order to ensure the health and safety of staff and particularly because of the industry in which they operate.

The employer also submits that had the employee raised any issue in relation to the manner the communication took place it would have taken appropriate steps to address any such concerns.

The facts in relation to this dispute are agreed.  The employer acknowledges that the employee complied with its sick pay provisions.  The only issue in dispute is the difference of opinion in relation to the communication between the employee and the HR Department.  I was provided with copies of all e-mails exchanged during this period.

At the hearing the employee outlined how he felt about the lack of support and empathy from the HR department. His expectations were different, and he noted that the e-mail exchanges added to an already stressful time for him.

At the hearing the HR manager gave evidence that he was involved in dealing with about 340 employees who were on sick leave around that time.  He maintained regular contact with these employees to ensure that the employer was up-to-date and that they could organise schedules based on when employees were deemed fit to resume duty.

The HR Manager presented the employee with an apology for any deficiencies in his communication with the employee and outlined that it was not his intention to demonstrate any lack of empathy.  The employee confirmed that this would be accepted and that he wished to move on with his life.

I recommend that the apology provided be accepted by the employee and that this concludes this matter.

Covid-19.  Sick Pay.  Fit to resume work.