Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Sales Assistant

Hair and Beauty Products Supplier

Representatives

Edmond Smith of Independent Workers Union

Karen Hennessy of Mason Hayes & Curran 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

09/08/2021

The worker says the employer did not follow their own procedures when she raised a grievance.

In March 2020 the worker applied for the PUP as the employer had to close because of the Covid pandemic. On 20 April 2021 her line manager paid a visit to the worker’s home to hand her a letter which stated she should return to work the following Tuesday, and that if she did not return to work it would be considered that she had resigned. Later, the worker became aware that other employees on a WhatsApp group had been informed only to return to work when the employer said so, in accordance with Government guidelines. On 19 May 2021 the worker contacted the company HR to to fully ascertain her position. The worker was instructed to attend a meeting 21 August 2021 to discuss her return to work. The Area Manager was present, as well as her line manager. The worker felt intimidated by the tone of the meeting. There was a Welfare meeting on 8 June 2021 which only confirmed the worker was out on work related stress. She was asked to sign a consent form re her medical history but raised a query as to whether this was the Company doctor. She did not get an answer to this query.

On 28 May 2021 the worker lodged a formal written grievance against her line manager and the company. On 29 June 2021 she was informed by the company they could not proceed with the investigation hearing as they were awaiting her consent for a medical examination/interview.  The grievance was heard on 14 July 2021. Later in July the worker was informed by Revenue that a number of PAYE/PRSI payments had been run through her account by the company. There was a Webex meeting on 27 July but the company’s email response after the meeting was far from satisfactory.

The worker says the way the employer dealt with her grievance and other issues caused her to go out on stress-related sick leave and is seeking compensation for this.

The employer says the worker lodged a written grievance on 28 May 2021 regarding how she was dealt with in relation to ‘return to work’ matters following her period of absence from work due to Covid-19 associated closures. A grievance meeting took place on 14 July 2021. On 3 August 2021 there a meeting to discuss a payroll issue. On 9 August 2021 the worker lodged her claim under the Industrial Relations Act, before the outcome of her initial grievance was communicated to her. The outcome of the grievance was issued on 13 August 2021, and this gave her 5 days to appeal the outcome. On 20 August 2021 the worker was given a further 4 days to lodge an appeal. No appeal was made within this time and the employed considered the grievance closed.

The employer says they followed appropriate company procedures in handling the worker’s grievance and her long-term sickness.

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

I note the worker referred this dispute to the WRC before she had been given the outcome of the investigation into her grievance. Furthermore she chose not to appeal the outcome of this appeal. Disputes under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 should generally only be referred to the WRC when internal efforts to resolve the dispute have been exhausted and the worker did not do this in this dispute.

Failed to exhaust internal procedures