Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Beata  Ilczyna

The Butcher's Block

Representatives

Independent Workers Union

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00035781-001

20/04/2020

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00035781-002

20/04/2020

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00035781-003

20/04/2020

On April 22nd, 2019, the complainant was informed that she was being transferred to a different store and replaced as manager in her then location. 

She did not wish to do so and went on sick leave soon after. She remains on sick leave.

The respondent had a social meeting in early January 2017, soon after acquiring the business and met the complainant despite her assertion that she had never done so

On April 22nd, 2019, the complainant was advised that she was being transferred to the Tallaght shop on the exact same pay and conditions and that she would begin employment there on April 26th, 2019.

She was joining the management team in Tallaght as that store needed improved administrative management, health and safety records, invoice recording etc. The complainant had excelled in these skills, and it was felt that she would be an asset to the management team in Tallaght.

The future managementof the Maynoothstore was not discussed with the complainant. Transfersof employees betweenTallaghtand Maynoothandviceversa had happened previouslyandtherewasneveranissuewithit.

Turnover at the Maynooth store had slipped between November 2016 and March 2019, and it was e felt that a new manager would turn the situation around. The complainant was aware how serious the situation was and it had been discussed with her.

Other strategies had also been tried such as re-training staff on new concepts in butchering and new products, but the complainant failed to sustain these changes.

In the circumstances, it was felt that with the complainant’s experience and administrative skills, she was better suited to the Tallaght store and therefore she was not offered alternative employment where she was.

She wastransferredonApril 22nd2019 and herpositionisstill openintheTallaghtstore,withthesamesalaryandconditionsthatshehadpreviously.

She was not dismissed or made redundant. She went sick after these events and remains on sick leave.

On the April 22nd, 2019, just before the store closed the complainant was informed that the following day, she was being moved to a different store as a new manager was being appointed in her store in Maynooth to improve business performance and sales.

She said she could not accept this because her contract of employment defines her place of work as Maynooth, and she lives in the town.  The transfer would greatly add to her commuting time.

She was surprised because since she became the Store Manager in January 2017 there had been no complaints about her work.

She requested that she be left in the Maynooth Store as an Assistant Manager or as a counter assistant, but this was refused. She says that any previous transfer between stores were of butchers, and not managers.

This resulted in her going on sick leave since the April 24th,2019.  

The Maynooth store has now ceased trading and closed, but the respondent has refused to respond to pay my statutory protective payment in lieu of notice and redundancy payment.

There are three complaints.

One, under the Unfair Dismissals Act, another under the Redundancy Payments Acts and a third for payment of notice. The event precipitating the complaints is as set out above.

The respondent proposed to transfer the complainant to a different location at very short notice and gave her no alternative. She sought to remain in a different capacity than as manager, but this was refused.

She then went on sick leave and has remained on sick leave ever since.

She continued, at least for a period, to submit medical certificates. She submitted a complaint to the WRC on April 20th, 2020, almost exactly a year after the alleged dismissal. It has not been made within the statutory time limit of six months (and no explanation was offered for the delay).

Her complaint for redundancy relates to the closure of her original place of employment, but that took place some nine months after her sick leave began.

All of these complaints are entirely misconceived, starting with the decisive consideration that her employment has not been terminated.

The complainant may well face a difficulty when she is well enough to return to work as her original place of employment has now closed and it is clear that the respondent proposes that she should move to the alternative venue proposed in April 2019, and which gave rise to the problem.

That is a matter that the parties will have to resolve as best they can at that time, but for now none of these complaints is well-founded as the complainant remains an employee of the respondent.

For the reasons set out above none of the complaints CA-00035781-001, 002 or 003 is well founded.

Dismissal, Redundancy