Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Deli Assistant

Service Station

Representatives

Self-Represented

Ms. Mary O'Connell, Incise Consulting

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00045043

05/07/2021

The Worker commenced employment with the Respondent on 10th May 2018. At all times the Worker’s role was described as that of “deli assistant”.

On 5th July 2021 the Worker referred a dispute within the meaning of the Acts to the Commission. Herein, she alleged that she had been treated unfairly by members of management during a work-related meeting. By response, the Employer denied this allegation, stating that the meeting in question was simply a standard performance review and that no unfair or oppressive treatment occurred.

The Employer positively elected to engage with the dispute on 3rd August. A hearing was consequently convened for, and finalised on, 3rd June 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 party during the course of the hearing.

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

The Worker commenced employment on 10th May 2018. The Worker was a dedicated member of staff and demonstrated flexibility during the Covid-19 pandemic.

In June 2020, management began to change the manner in which the deli operated. These changes led to significant disquiet amongst the staff members. In particular, some staff members were concerned that under the new roster, they may have had to work as many as ten days in a row.

After the Worker relaying some of her concerns regarding these changes to management, a group meeting was arranged to allow all staff members to voice their concerns. At this point, the Worker felt that her concerns were being listened to and was happy to continue in her employment.

Shortly following this meeting, on 22nd July 2020, the Worker was invited to a meeting by management. The Worker was not given advance warning of the subject matter of this meeting and was not permitted the right of representation. During the meeting the Worker was shown a portion of CCTV and repeatedly asked questions regarding what she observed on the date in question. The Worker was interrogated for over twenty minutes regarding the pricing of food items. At one point her line manager stated that it was alleged that the Worker had purposefully mis-priced an item to benefit a customer.

The following day the Worker requested a meeting with management regarding the events of the day previous. During this meeting, the Worker stated that she should not have been shown the CCTV footage without her consent and that she intended to make a GDPR request regarding the same. The Worker stated that she believed that what had occurred was a defamation of her character and that she had given the Employer no reason to doubt her honesty throughout her employment. The Worker stated that she commenced a period of sick leave following the incident and has not returned since.

By response, the Employer submitted that they had treated the Worker fairly at all times and express regret that the matter had proceeded this far.

The Worker’s manager stated that they periodically conduct performance reviews with staff members. These reviews do not follow a set form but rather are an opportunity to create a dialogue between staff and management regarding day-to-day operations. On 22nd July 2020, the Worker was invited to such a meeting. The Employer accepted that the Worker did not receive an agenda for the meeting but submitted that there was nothing unusual about the same. They further accepted that the Worker was not provided with an express right of representation for the meeting but again submitted that the same was not required given the informality of the meeting.

In the course of the meeting, the Employer raised an issue regarding the correct pricing of certain food items. In this respect management were conducting a review in the section and were interested in the Worker’s views in relation to the same. The Employer was at pains to point out that the Worker was not, and never has been, accused of any wrong doing in the course of her employment.  They accepted that the Worker was shown CCTV footage but again stated that this was simply to receive the Worker’s comments in relation to the same.

Following the meeting, the Worker commenced a period of long-term sick leave. Notwithstanding the same, the Worker issued correspondence on multiple occasions confirming that she had not been accused of any wrong doing, that no disciplinary issue was in contemplation and requesting the the Worker return to her role.

The present dispute relates to the Employer’s action during a meeting in July 2020. The Worker submits that the conduct of this meeting was oppressive and that the same was held in breach of her natural rights and fair procedures.

The first point of contention relates to the Worker submission regarding advance notification of the meeting and the right to representation during the same. Having reviewed the evidence in this regard, it is apparent that the meeting was not a formal meeting within the meaning of the Employer’s disciplinary or grievance procedures. While it is also apparent that the meeting was not purely a performance review, it is clear that the Employer did not intend to make any decisions or impose any significant changes on foot of what was discussed during the same. Having regard to the foregoing, I find that the absence of the procedural rights the referred to by the Worker refers do not render the meeting unfair or the Employer’s conduct unreasonable.

The next point of contention relates to the line of questioning adopted by the Employer in the course of the meeting. The Worker has submitted that same serve to defame her and, at least, implied some wrongdoing on her part. Having heard both accounts of this meeting, I do not accept that the meeting was simply a performance review as submitted by the Employer. It is apparent the meeting served as a form of investigation regarding the incorrect pricing of certain stock. However, in such situations an employer is entitled to make inquiries regarding potential issues with staff members. Such inquiries do not imply that the employee in question is at fault, it is merely the manner by which the Employer can gather information to properly investigate an issue thereafter. In this regard I note that the Employer corresponded with the Worker on numerous occasions confirming that she was not accused of any wrongdoing and attempting to give comfort regarding the Worker’s ongoing employment. Having regard to the same, I do not find that the Employer’s conduct was unreasonable in this regard.

The Worker also raised issue with the fact that she was made review CCTV in an alleged breach of her rights as a data subject. While such matters are beyond the remit of this forum, I note that such an action is not unusual and again does not indicate any wrong doing on the part of the Employee.

Having regard to the totality of the foregoing points, I do not recommend in favour of the Worker regarding this dispute. Notwithstanding the same, I do wish to point out that it is apparent that she was a diligent and hard-working employee held in some esteem by the Employer. It is also abundantly clear that the Worker is not guilty of, or even remotely associated with, any wrongdoing in the workplace. On foot of the same, it is my hope that the parties can repair their relationship hereafter.

I do not recommend in favour of the Worker.

Investigation, Notice, Representation