Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Trainee Manager

Supermarket

Representatives

Self-Represented

Caoilainn O’Sullivan, The HR Suite

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts

CA-00045189-001

14/07/2021

The Worker commenced employment on 2nd December 2020. The Worker was a full-time, salaried member of staff. At all times his role was described as that of “trainee manager”. The Worker resigned his employment on 29th March 2021.

On 14th July 2021, the Worker referred the present complaint to the Commission. Herein, he alleged that he terminated his employment on the grounds of the Respondent’s ongoing poor treatment. By response, the Employer denied this allegation and submitted that they treated the Worker with respect at all times. A hearing in relation to this matter was convened for, and finalised on, 28th April 2022. This hearing conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced by either side during the hearing.

No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the present dispute were raised at any stage of the proceedings.

The Worker commenced employment on 2nd December 2020. The Worker’s job title was that of “trainee manager”. Near the commencement of the Worker’s employment, he became ill and took a period of unpaid leave to ensure that he did not become infected with Covid-19. On his return, the Worker raised issues regarding the Employer’s failure to enforce the HSE guidelines regarding the containment of the Covid-19 virus. In particular, the Worker raised issue with the store exceeding its assigned capacity and the other managers allowing unmasked customers enter the premises. The Worker stated that his concerns in this regard were not taken seriously, and he was instead met with derision from the other managers.

The Worker stated that in January of 2021 he spoke with the general manger regarding the conduct of one of the other managers. Following this conversation, no action was taken and the behaviour continued unabated.

In March of 2020, the Worker suffered a workplace injury that necessitated emergency dental treatment. Following the same, the Worker requested a later shift to facilitate a further appointment. This request was duly ignored and the Worker was rostered for the morning of the appointment. The Worker was then forced to travel to this appointment during his break. On his return, the Worker was asked to repair a urinal in the public restrooms. Some time later, during the Worker’s lunch break, the general manager requested that he clean this area again, despite the availability of several other members of staff. Following this incident, the Worker spoke with the HR manage of the Employer to complain about this treatment and to advise that he was going home to get changed. The Worker did not return to work that day or the next day.

On March 31st, the Worker returned and again spoke with the Employer’s HR manager. In the course of this conversation, he advised that he felt he was being bullied by management in an effort to get him to leave the employment.  When the Worker raised the issues regarding the non-adherence to the Covid-19 pandemic, the HR manager advised that the meeting was to be adjourned. Following the same, the Worker did not receive any notification regarding a re-scheduled appointment. In circumstances whereby the Worker believed that nothing was going to be done about his complaint, or the adverse treatment he received, he resigned his employment.

From the outset, the Employer denied that the Worker has been subject to any unfair treatment in the course of this employment. 

While the Employer accepted that the Worker approached the General Manager regarding a complaint regarding a different manager, it was denied that nothing was done on foot of the same. Rather, it was submitted that the General Manager spoke to the manager in question on an informal basis and resolved the issue in this manner. Following the conversation, the General Manager spoke with the Worker and advised that if the matter persisted that he should speak with him and the complaint could be formalised.

Regarding the Worker’s submission regarding the adherence to the Covid-19 guidelines, the Employer denied these in a general manner. They submitted that had the Worker wished to raise an issue in respect of the same via the internal procedures, the Employer would have investigated the same at the relevant time.

Regarding the incident of the 29th March, the Employer submitted that they have authority to delegate tasks to members of staff as required. In relation to the particular task, the cleaning of the urinal, the Employer accepted that this was an unpleasant task but that the General Manager, the other manager and other members of staff had completed the same previously. They submitted that the Worker did not state that he was on his lunch break when asked to complete the task. Following the same, the Worker requested to go home to change, a request that was immediately granted. The following day, the Worker did not attend for his shift as rostered.

On 31st March, the Worker attended for his shift. During this shift, the Worker spoke to the Employer's HR Manager.  In the course of this conversation, the Worker tendered his resignation verbally and outlined a number of issues he experienced in the workplace.

The following day, the Employer corresponded with the Worker, requesting that he reconsider his resignation and encouraged him to invoke the internal grievance procedure for this purpose. As the Worker did not respond to this communication, the Employer accepted his resignation by correspondence dated 7th April 2021.

In the present dispute, the Worker has outlined a series of alleged poor treatment on the part of the Employer regarding his employment. While I note the Employer denies these allegations in a general sense, the defence advanced in this respect is that the Worker did not raise a formal grievance at the relevant time and that they cannot properly investigate the same at this juncture. They further submit that in circumstances whereby the Worker failed to raise such a grievance, his resignation was premature and consequently his application should fail.

As explained to the parties, the purpose of the hearing is not to act as a substitute for a grievance hearing. Many of the issues raised by the Worker are inter-personal in nature and cannot be investigated without a consideration of the rights of the respondent to the complaint. Rather, the purpose of the hearing is to examine the conduct of the Employer and to determinate if the same was reasonable in the circumstances.

In this regard, I note that Worker was presented with a comprehensive set of procedures at or near the commencement of his employment. Included therein was a multi-step, formal grievance procedure. It is common case the Worker did not engage with this procedure in the course of his employment. Nonetheless, the Worker submitted that he spoke with the Employer’s HR Manager on two occasions, outlining the difficulties he experienced in his role. On foot of the same the HR Manager had a duty to commence formal investigation of the same. Taking this submission at its height, I note that the Employer opened correspondence referring to a request to re-consider his resignation and engage with the formal procedures. In this regard, even if the Employer did not offer these on the 29th March or 31st March, they were offered very shortly thereafter. In such circumstances the Worker had an obligation to engage with the same and allow the Employer an opportunity to properly investigate his complaints.

Having regard to the accumulation of the foregoing points, I do not recommend in favour of the Worker.

I do not recommend in favour of the Worker.

Constructive Dismissal, Industrial Relations