Employee

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Window Fitter

A Window Installation Company

Representatives

Self-represented

Stephen Scott, Evelyn Partners

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-00046878-001

28/10/2021

The employee is a window fitter and he commenced working for the employer, a window installation company, in June 2021.  He resigned on October 5th 2021.  He claims that he was treated aggressively by his supervisor and that this caused him to suffer from stress and that he had to leave.

At the hearing, the representative of the liquidator said that the company was placed in involuntary liquidation on October 29th 2021.  In preparation for this hearing, on August 16th 2022, the managing director (MD) provided the liquidator with a statement and supporting documents which set out the employer’s position in relation to this dispute.

From the time that he started work in June 2021 until early September, the employee said that he was forced to work overtime.  On September 6th, he had to leave early to go to the dentist and the following day, he said that his supervisor was verbally abusive to him and that he raised his fist to him.  He said that he was never treated in such a manner in any other place that he had worked and he felt forced to leave the company.  He claims that he has been constructively dismissed.  He wants to be paid for the time he was out sick and for holidays that he didn’t take between June and September 2021.

In his written submission, the MD said that in June 2021, he recruited the employee from a labour agency that he had employed to do work.  During the three months that he was employed directly, the MD said that the employee’s timekeeping and attendance were unacceptable, and that he never communicated with his supervisor when he needed time off.  The MD submitted examples of eight occasions when the employee left the site early or did not attend work due to illness.  On August 2nd 2021, the employee informed his supervisor that he was resigning, but he returned on August 11th, claiming that he had been on holidays.

Included in the employer’s book of documents was a copy of an email dated September 7th 2021 from the employee to the MD.  In the email, the employee claimed that he was verbally abused by the supervisor when he arrived at work, because he had left at 4.00pm the previous day.  He said that he was embarrassed by the supervisor’s behaviour because he was screaming and shouting in front of other employees.  The MD replied saying that he would speak to the supervisor and get back to the employee.

On September 8th, the supervisor wrote to the MD, explaining his version of events.  He said that when he called the employee aside to tell him not to leave the site without notifying him, the employee reacted saying that he was fed up with the supervisor and that he was “on his case” all the time.  He said that he was leaving.  The supervisor said that he reacted by saying that that might be better because he had issues.

On September 10th, the MD wrote to the employee, asking him to meet him on September 15th in a hotel in Dublin convenient to his home.  Alternatively, he said that he would meet the employee in his home.  The meeting was to be an informal welfare meeting to discuss the reason for the employee’s absence and how the business might be able to help to alleviate his stress, so that he could return to work.  The employee replied on September 14th, saying that he was unwell until September 22nd and not able to attend any work meetings.

The MD wrote to the employee on September 16th.  He invited him to a re-scheduled meeting on September 22nd to address his work-related problems.  In the letter, he told the employee that, if he didn’t want to proceed with an informal meeting, he could invoke the formal stage of the grievance procedure.  He enclosed a copy of the procedure with the letter.  The employee replied on September 21st, indicating that he was still unwell and not able to come to a work-related meeting.  On October 5th, he sent an email to the MD in which he said that he was “not comfortable to come back to the same working environment because of work-related verbal abuse, and therefore I have to resign.  It is effective immediately.”

The employer’s position is that the employee was given a reasonable opportunity to have his complaint about his supervisor resolved.  He resigned in circumstances where his employer had twice invited him to a meeting to discuss his complaint.  As he failed to co-operate with the MD to address his concerns about the conduct of his supervisor, the representative of the liquidator submitted that the employee’s complaint should not be upheld.

I have considered the employee’s case that he felt that he had to leave his job due to the conduct of his supervisor.  I have also reviewed the employer’s evidence in letters that were sent to the employee to ask him to meet the company’s MD to discuss his complaints.

Statutory Instrument 146 of 2000, the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures, provides guidance to employers and employees regarding the resolution of grievances and the handling of disciplinary matters.  Paragraph 2 of section 3 of the Code sets out the benefit of having access to a grievance or disciplinary procedure:

Such procedures serve a dual purpose in that they provide a framework which enables management to maintain satisfactory standards and employees to have access to procedures whereby alleged failures to comply with these standards may be fairly and sensitively addressed. It is important that procedures of this kind exist and that the purpose, function and terms of such procedures are clearly understood by all concerned. 

Having reviewed the documents and the information provided at the hearing of this dispute, I am satisfied that the employee was provided with the procedure for having his grievance addressed, and that he was given an opportunity to do so.  His decision to resign from his employment without using the procedures and the intervention suggested by his employer leaves the matter unresolved.  It is not my function, as the adjudicator, to initiate an investigation into the employee’s complaints; my role is to examine how the procedures were utilised and if the outcome was reasonable.  Unfortunately, as the employee declined the opportunity to have his grievance investigated, there is no outcome for me to consider.

I am satisfied that, in response to the employee’s complaint, the MD acted reasonably by arranging to meet him and by giving him a copy of the grievance procedure.  It is my view that the employee’s decision not to attend a meeting with the MD and to resign from his job was not a reasonable response. 

I recommend that the employer takes no further action with regard to this dispute.

Failure to use the grievance procedure