Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Receptionist

English Language College

Representatives

Worker’s Sister

Jason Murray BL instructed by M.P. Moloney Solicitors

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

02/02/2020

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

23/02/2020

The Complainant has submitted two complaints of alleged adverse treatment by the Respondent.  The Respondent was in attendance at the hearing but declined to take part in proceedings.

First Dispute

The Worker made the following submission in relation to the first dispute:

During the course of her employment, the Worker was paid commission by the Employer based on the amount of English language courses she sold.  The Workers submits that in November 2019 she lost sales as one of her colleagues was permitted to apply lower prices than she was.  The Worker also submits that on 6 December 2019, the CEO agreed to allow a student to pay by instalments and asked the Worker to delete this transaction from her commissions. No agreement or notice was given in advance.

On 20 December 2019, the Worker sought permission to include a new student in February afternoon classes. However, the CEO refused her request. After the Christmas holidays the student confirmed that she had renewed her course with another colleague.  When the Worker asked why she had been refused her request to enrol the student, the CEO did not respond.  On 15 January 2020, the CEO again refused to allow the Worker to add new students in February, March and April 2020 even though her colleagues from other marketing departments were allowed to do so. 

On 30 January 2020, the HR Director emailed her to say that her complaint about unfair treatment, unfair dismissal from the Latin American marketing department and unequal treatment had been closed, as the incident happened three months previously and that she had replied to his last email 6 six weeks previously.  The Complainant contends that since her first complaint, the HR Director took one month and twenty days to reply to her email.

Second Dispute

The Worker made the following submission in relation to the second dispute:

On 2 February 2020, the Worker made her first complaint to the WRC.  On 2 February 2020, she emailed the CEO and Finance Director to inform them that she was unable to go to work as she was not feeling well. On 4 February 2020, the Worker sent a copy of her medical certificate to the CEO and Finance Director to notify them about her sick leave from 4 to 11 February 2020 inclusive. On 7 February 2020, the Worker received correspondence from the WRC confirming that her complaint had been received and that a copy of her complaints had been forwarded to the Respondent. On 12 February 2020, the Worker returned to work.  At 08.40 on that day, she emailed the CEO to inform him that her marketing email and her access to the Employer’s IT system had been blocked. 

The CEO replied that as the Worker did not reply to the Employer’s emails, WhatsApp messages and phone calls when they requested the password for her accounts, the Employer had to access her marketing email and that was why her accounts were blocked.  The Worker contends that she did not reply was because she was on certified sick leave and was following her doctor's recommendation to rest.

On 12 February 2020, the Worker asked the HR Director to send her the Employer’s Policies and Procedure as she had never received those documents. While she was in the HR Director’s office, he mentioned that he had sent her an email inviting her to a meeting on 18 February 2020 with the Quality Enhancement Director and the Director of Studies to discuss the disruption caused by her absence.

The Worker asserts that at approximately 15.30, while she was alone at the reception, the HR Director and the CEO approached her in a very intimidating and threatening manner.  The CEO stood close to her, blocking her only exit.  The HR Director asked her if she had printed out documentation that belonged to the Employer.  The Worker replied that she was printing material for the meeting on 18 February 2020, so that she would be able to prove that no disruption was caused during her sick leave because colleagues had the same access to the system and shared data she had.  The HR Director, told her, in a hostile manner, that she was not permitted to print any of the Employer’s data and remove it from the building. The Worker contends that they did not give her an opportunity to explain her actions.  She tried to tell them that she always printed emails in the past and it was never flagged to her  as a matter of concern in any way.  Also, it was never her intention to remove any data from the building but she was not given an opportunity to say this.  The Worker was informed that she would be prosecuted as she was committing a crime in relation to the GDPR legislation.  

The Worker asked the HR Director if he could send her an email explaining what he had told her about data protection and how she could be prosecuted.  The CEO said that the HR Director would not issue such an email and that she would have to speak to her legal advisor about this. The CEO then  pointed to her personal bag and said that the envelopes that she had in there belonged to the Employer. He forced her to take the envelopes from her bag and obliged her to open them to see what documents were inside.  The Worker contends that they were the emails that she was printing for the meeting that she would have on 18 February 2020 with the HR Director.  The Worker maintains that she asked the CEO and HR Director to give her back the documents so that she could use them as evidence for her complaint to the WRC, but that the CEO and the HR Director refused to return the documents.

At 16.15, while the Worker was working at reception, the Director of Studies approached the Worker to say that she had been asked the bring the Worker to a meeting with the HR Director and the CEO.  The Worker asked the Director of Studies what was the purpose of the meeting but the Director of Studies answered that she did not know.  The Worker said to the Director of Studies that if the HR Director and the CEO would like to have a formal meeting with her, then they should have sent her an email informing her of the purpose of the meeting.  The Director of Studies said that the Worker could not refuse to go to the meeting as it was with senior management.

The Worker politely requested the Director of Studies to give her a few minutes as she needed to make a phone call.   The Worker phoned her husband and Citizens Information.  Citizens Information advised her that if the meeting was taking place after work she did not have to attend. Also, if it was a formal meeting, she should have received prior notification of the meeting.

The Director of Studies did not give the Worker any privacy to make these phone calls so she had to go out of the building to speak with Citizens Information to have privacy. Finally, she went to the meeting at 16.35.   The Worker asked the HR Director if it was an informal or formal meeting. When he responded that it was a formal meeting, she asked if he could please send her email notification of the purpose of the meeting so that she would have an opportunity to prepare for it.

The HR Direction then took his phone from his pocket to send her an email as she had requested. The Worker informed the HR Director that she was not in a position to attend the meeting as she had other commitments after her working hours.  She asked again if he could please send her an email with all information.  Instead she received an email from the HR Director notifying her that she was suspended from work. All these events occurred on the day she came back from her sick leave which was extremely stressful for her.  The Worker felt very intimidated so she requested the CEO to provide her with the CCTV footage of what happened on that day as proof of the harassment she suffered from the CEO, the HR Director and the Director of Studies.

The Worker contends that on 7 February 2020, while she was on sick leave, her Line Manager from the Latin American marketing department mentioned to one of the students to whom the Worker had sold an English course, that the Worker was no longer an employee of the Employer organisation.  When the Worker returned from sick leave on 12 February 2020 and met that student, the student was surprised to see the Worker in reception as she was told she not longer worked in the Employer Organisation.

The Employer respectfully submits that there is no valid trade dispute before the Adjudication Officer and the Employer will not deal with this complaint on that basis.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

Based on the uncontested case put before me by the Worker, I find that the Worker has been treated by the Employer in a manner which infringes on her right to fair and reasonable treatment during the course of her work.

I recommend that the Employer pay the Worker €5,000 in redress for treating her in an inappropriate manner.

Unfair and unreasonable treatment