Employee

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Fitness Instructor

A Leisure Centre

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00048668-002

16/02/2022

The employee is a professional fitness instructor and he commenced employment with the leisure centre on September 2nd 2019.  He was paid €12.00 per hour.  His last day at work was in February 2022.  He said that he didn’t go back to work after he was falsely accused of using his phone on the pool deck in the leisure centre.  He claims that he was bullied and harassed at work concerning his use of his mobile phone and the posting of content on his social media accounts.

Accompanying the form he sent to the WRC on February 16th 2022, the employee sent a schedule of problems he claims that he encountered during his employment.  He said,

“The communication between me and management seems to have broken down.  I am currently absent from work due to the lack of resolution made by the management.  The situation has caused me immense stress and I would appreciate if I were provided with the guidance needed to help me with the situation.”

The employee listed the issues causing his stress:

He claims he was falsely accused of using his mobile phone on the pool desk;

When he contacted his manager about the issues he was concerned about, he claims his manager used inappropriate language;

He said that he was the only employee harassed about punctuality and he was expected to stay behind and clean up after gym sessions;

He was expected to lock up, which he claims is the job of a duty manager;

He said that his manager referred to his mental health in a belittling way, telling him not to “go awol;”

He said that he wasn’t considered for promotion;

He claims that his manager sided with a duty manager against him;

He feels pressurised into resigning.

At the hearing, the employee submitted a certificate from his doctor dated February 18th 2022, two days after he submitted this grievance to the WRC.  The medical cert indicates that he will be absent until March 11th; however, he did not return to work.  At the hearing, he said that he didn’t formally resign and he wasn’t dismissed.  He now works at another job and he doesn’t intend to return to work in the leisure centre.

In the submission he provided to the WRC before the hearing, the operations manager said that he spoke to the employee on February 3rd 2022 regarding the use of his mobile phone on the pool deck.  At the hearing, the operations manager said that, over the weekend of January 31st 2022, he got a text message from one of the duty managers telling him that a member of the leisure centre reported that the employee had been using his phone while she was in the pool.  On Monday, February 1st, the operations manager said that he went to speak to the employee, who denied that he was using his phone.  The operations manager said that he told the employee that, to avoid any confusion, he was to leave his phone in his locker.  The employee left work early, saying he was stressed out, having been accused of being on his phone.

The following day, February 2nd, the operations manager said that he had a good meeting with the employee, who said that he hadn’t got an issue with him, the operations manager, but with the duty manager who reported him.  He said that the duty manager should have approached him in the first instance.  The operations manager said that this was not the first occasion that the duty managers had informed him that the employee was using his phone at work.

The operations manager said that the employee wasn’t the only person who he had to speak to about using phones while they were working.  He said that he sent a copy of the pool protocol to the employee so that he would be reminded of the requirement not to use phones at work.  He said that he dealt with the situation in a low-key manner and he told the employee that there would be no disciplinary action arising from the incident.

Later that day, or the following day, the employee was heard by one of the duty managers telling his colleague that he wasn’t using his mobile phone on the pool deck.  The duty manager resigned, claiming that he was being called a liar.  The operations manager investigated what was said and the employee’s colleague said that the employee didn’t refer to the duty manager as a liar, but that it could be implied that he said that he had fabricated the story about him being on his mobile phone.  The operations manager said that, when he was off duty at home, the employee sent him a text message.  In response, he sent him a long message outlining his version of events.  A copy of the message was included in the employee’s documents at the hearing.  In the message, the operations manager, said, “Today I went to you and told you your conversation with (a colleague) bitching about our meeting was overhead by (the duty manager) and he gave his notice for his mental health because he felt you were calling him a liar.”

The employee left work early on Thursday, February 3rd and did not turn up for his shift the following day.  He submitted a medical cert on February 7th.  On February 17th, the operations manager sent the employee an email, asking him for consent to send him for a medical, but he did not reply and he did not return to work. 

Regarding the employee’s suggestion that he was not considered for promotion, the operations manager said that his application was considered in September 2019, when he applied for a job as a duty manager.  The people who were appointed were more qualified than him and more suitable for the duty manager position.

The operations manager said that, in relation to the tasks he was expected to carry out, the employee was not treated differently to anyone else.

I have considered the issues that the employee submitted for investigation and it is clear that they are day-to-day differences of opinion between an employee and a manager regarding conduct at work.  On February 17th 2022, having been absent from work for almost two weeks, the operations manager wrote to the employee and said,

“…I would like to address recent incidents and arrange a meeting with you on your return.  The meeting will give you the opportunity to discuss all your concerns around what happened on Monday 31st January 2022 and Thursday, 3rd February 2022, which resulted in you withdrawing from work on both days.”

The letter goes on to suggest that the employee makes a written record of his version of events, so that his views can be considered at a meeting.

In his submission to the WRC, the employee seeks guidance to help him with his dispute with his employer.  This is not the role of the adjudication service.  The function of an adjudication officer is to enquire into a dispute and to make a recommendation on how it might be resolved only when the parties have exhausted the procedures available to them locally.  It is apparent that, because the employee left his job and did not return, the employer had no opportunity to try to resolve the issues through discussion or by using a standard grievance procedure.

As the employee has decided to move on from this employer and, as he is now working in a new job, I recommend that the employer takes no further action regarding this matter.

Failure to engage locally to resolve grievances