FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DUNNES STORES (REPRESENTED BY BYRNE WALLACE LLP) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1.Complaint Seeking Adjudication By The Workplace Relations Commission Under The Industrial Relations Act A remote Labour Court hearing took place on 15 July 2022. The employer wrote to the Court to advise that it would not attend the hearing. As the Employer did not attend the hearing, the Court accepts the undisputed facts as presented by the Worker. The Worker told the Court that she holds a number of business management qualifications and has fifteen years’ experience working in the retail sector. In September 2021, she commenced working with the Employer and was recruited to work as a Department Manager with her own dedicated team and department. The Worker was not assigned a team to manage and the role she applied for never materialised. Instead, she was allocated tasks in different departments filling shelves and replenishing stock on the shop floor. The Worker attempted to engage with the General Manager and HR to discuss the fact that she was not allocated a team or department to manage but was largely ignored. She secured agreement a month in advance that she would be allowed to take 24 December off, which is a holy religious day in her religion. However, she subsequently was required to work on Christmas Eve. The Worker feels misled by the Employer. She was given repeated promises that she would be allocated a team, but that promise was not fulfilled. Ultimately, she felt that she had no option but to resign and left the employment in January 2022. The Worker told the Court that in May 2022 she secured a management role with another employer in the retail sector but suffered four months loss of earnings in the interim. She would like her former Employer to be held accountable for its actions and seeks that the Court award €30,000 in compensation. In response to questions from the Court, the Worker confirmed that she had been issued with a contract of employment and company handbook. She acknowledged that she had not utilised the formal grievance procedure to raise her concerns before she resigned. In the Court’s view there is no doubt that the Worker encountered issues with her former Employer and difficulties with her new role, which clearly did not meet her expectations. Her frustration and disappointment are understandable, given that she left a management position with another retail company to take up a role as Department Manager and that role never materialised. However, the Court is of the view that the Worker’s decision to resign when she did after three months service was premature. The Worker chose not to avail of or exhaust the internal grievance procedures available to her before she resigned. This is regrettable as it would have given her employer an opportunity to formally respond to her grievances before she made the significant decision to resign. The Worker has now resigned her position and taken up a role elsewhere so there is no merit in engaging with her former Employer at this point. In all of the circumstances, the Court cannot uphold the Worker’s claim. The Court finds that the Worker’s complaint fails as she did not exhaust the internal grievance process. The Court so recommends.
NOTE Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ian Kelly, Court Secretary. |
