Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Leisure Centre Attendant

A Hotel

Representatives

Ciara Casey of IBEC

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

04/02/2022

The worker raised issues which she says were not dealt with properly and resulted in a suspension.

The worker commenced employment with the employer on 17 August 2020 as a Leisure Centre Attendant. In September 2021 she requested that the employer consider paying her commission for group swimming lessons. She had been teaching these at the same rate of pay as for carrying out other duties, even though they required different skills and qualifications. She was told no and on 11 November told her Head of Department that she would no longer be teaching group lessons, as it was not in her contract or job description. Also, she was doing more lessons than other Attendants. There was an investigation meeting on 22 November. Afterwards the other two instructors also informed the Head of Department they were no longer going to teach group lessons.

On 23 November she was sent home because she said she was not teaching a group lesson. She emailed HR to ask why this had happened but received no reply until she returned to work on 26 November to be told she was suspended pending an investigation. Her colleagues were not sent home or suspended. One was offered a pay rise if he taught the classes but he refused and resigned.

The worker was suspended for eight weeks. When she returned to work she attended a disciplinary hearing which resulted in a first written warning and told further action would be taken if she chose not to teach group lessons.

The worker was not happy with the outcome of the grievance she raised; particularly that most points she raised were not investigated. She appealed the outcome and appealed the disciplinary outcome but all to no avail. Then she was told she could no longer teach lessons off shift, which formed a big part of her weekly pay.

The employer says the worker commenced employment with them on 17 August 2020 as a leisure centre attendant and her employment terminated on 6 March 2022 when she resigned. She was employed on a casual contract at €10.10 per hour, which increased to €11.00 on 13 September 2021.

On 6 September 2021 the worker raised issues verbally with the HR Executive requesting commission for conducting group swim classes, which took place during her rostered hours. The employer says they could not provide commission but they did increase the worker’s pay to €11 per hour from 13 September 2021.

The employer says it was explained to the worker in her interview for the role that conducting group swim lessons was part of the duties of this role, and the worker conducted these lessons from 17 August 2020 to 15 November 2021, excluding when Covid-19 restrictions were in place, without raising any objections.

Commission is paid on private lessons that the worker conducts outside of her rostered hours.

On 15 November 2021 the worker refused to conduct the group swim classes because she was not receiving commission for carrying out these duties. An investigation meeting took place on 22 November 2021. On 23 November the worker continued to refuse to carry out the lessons and was sent home. On 26 November the HR Executive informed the worker she was placed on paid suspension pending an investigation into her refusal to carry out the group lessons. On 1 December the worker submitted a grievance. A grievance meeting took place on 14 December 2021 and the outcome was sent to the worker. On 23 December she informed the employer that the investigation process could resume. On 6 January the worker appealed the outcome of the grievance and a grievance appeal meeting took place on 11 January 2022. The worker was issued with the outcome of the grievance appeal on 18 January 2022.

An investigation meeting took place on 7 January 2022. On 8 January the worker emailed the employer requesting they enter mediation under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. The employer advised the worker they would use their own internal procedures and would not be entering into an external mediation at this time. The worker was given the outcome of the investigation on 12 January and a disciplinary meeting took place on 19 January 2022. She was informed of the outcome on 21 January 2022. On the same day she was advised her suspension had ceased and her return to work date was 25 January. The worker appealed the outcome of the disciplinary hearing and an appeal hearing took place on 28 January. The worker was informed of the outcome on 1 February 2022.

The worker returned to work on 3 February 2022 and was invited to attend internal mediation to repair working relationships between the parties. The worker submitted her dispute to the Workplace Relations Commission on 4 February 2002.

The worker resigned on 28 February 2022. She was asked to reconsider but confirmed her resignation on 4 March 2022.

The employer says they acted reasonably at all times and implemented their procedures in dealing with the issues that arose.

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

The worker felt she should have received more financial reward for the group lessons than her basic hourly rate, because they needed more skills and qualifications than her other duties. The employer says the worker was told at interview she would be carrying out group lessons as part of her duties and she did so for some time without complaint.

The worker considered the refusal of her request for commission to be unreasonable. The employer considered the worker’s refusal to carry out these lessons to be a disciplinary matter. Grievance and disciplinary investigations followed. However, the matter was not resolved satisfactorily for the worker and she resigned.

I note the employer paid some level of compensation for the private lessons she was unable to take during her suspension.

Industrial Relations Act – no recommendation