ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00037867
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Sales Assistant | A Clothing Store |
Representatives | N/A | Jennifer O'Sullivan Burns Nowlan Solicitors |
Complaint:
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-00044903-003 | 02/07/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing:
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.
Specifically, I conducted a remote hearing in accordance with the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and Statutory Instrument 359/2020 which designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
Background:
The Complainant commenced employment as a sales assistant with the Respondent on 1 January 2004 and was paid €599.66 per week. She stated that she was bullied by the Respondent’s directors at various stages over the course of her employment. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complaint stated that, over the course of her employment, the Respondent’s Directors shouted at and insulted her in front of both other members of staff and customers. She stated that she was shouted at for not answering her phone calls while driving her car while running errands for one of the Directors. She also claimed that she was reprimanded for not answering calls and texts outside of working hours and was told by one of the Respondent’s directors that her brain didn’t work the same way as everyone else’s. In addition, she stated that one of the Directors threatened to get her husband in to the workplace to sort the Complainant out and added that she found her unreasonable behaviour towards her very difficult to tolerate, especially as she was the only member of staff to be on the receiving end of it. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent denied that the Complainant was bullied or harassed during the course of her employment. The Respondent also denied reprimanding the Complainant for failing to answer calls or texts outside of working hours or threatening or abusing the Complainant in any manner as alleged. The Respondent stated that at all times they had a good working relationship with the Complainant and highlighted that the Complainant never raised a grievance in respect of the alleged behaviour during her 17 years as an employee. |
Findings and Conclusions:
There was no evidence presented to suggest that the Complainant raised any issue with the Respondent’s treatment of her until 18th May 2021, namely the date on which she resigned her employment. Given that she failed to use the Respondent’s grievance procedure to address the difficulties that she allegedly had in the workplace, prior to her resignation, I cannot make a recommendation that is favourable to her. |
Decision:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I cannot make a recommendation that is favourable to the Complainant for the reasons set out above. |
Dated: 02-08-22
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill
Key Words:
|