Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Trainee Barista

A Coffee Shop

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00053510-001

2nd November 2022

Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00053510-002

2nd November 2022

The complainant commenced her shift at 9 am on October 27th, 2022, and after about an hour she was approached by a coworker who commented on what she was doing and told her to relax. She then proceeded to engage in conversation with another colleague and commented “if that young one comes near me, I swear….

The complainant approached her and told her to be professional in the workplace and her colleague responded, ‘I’m warning you’ and used other strong language to her, including a threat. The complainant approached the manager and told her what happened and that she was not prepared to be treated like that she also told her that she felt safe unsafe and said it was best if she left.

The manager told her to go.

And at that point the complainant left the building. Later that day she contacted her manager and they agreed to meet her before a shift the next day. She turned up for the meeting before her shift and met her manager who asked her to explain what happened.

Her manager accused of having been respectful and embarrassing but did not refer to the fact that she had been abused and threatened. She says the manager said we are letting you go.

She regarded this as the termination of her employment.

The complainant was employed on a full-time contract from 26th September 2022 as a Barista/Sales Assistant earning €11 per hour and worked an average of 37.5 hours per week. Her contract of employment was attached.

On the morning of27th October 2022, she started her shift at 9am.

There was training scheduled with a member of the internal training team (FD) and the head barista in the café at the time(EF). According to those in attendance (statements gathered and submitted in evidence),there was a verbal exchange between the complainant and EF during the course of the morning shift.

The complainant was upset about this altercation and brought this to the attention of her manager, JG. The complainant left for the rest of the day, without speaking in detail with her manager. She requested a meeting with JG before the start of her shift on the following day, 28th October, to discuss the incident in more detail.

After this meeting, the complainant was due to start her shift but left the café and later that day removed herself from the cafe WhatsApp group

Her absence from work was unauthorised and JG assumed that her continued absence from work, along with her own removal from the WhatsApp group, was indicative of a resignation from her position.

As her service was less than thirteen weeks’, no notice period was due as per her contract of employment and therefore this was not followed up on. Due to the nature of the business and lack of communication from her, the respondent decided not to pursue this issue further.

As the complainant’s actions were interpreted as a resignation from her position, all effort was concentrated on finding a replacement to try and minimise disruption to operations within the café.

Neither the respondent HR department nor any member of the management team have received any correspondence from the complainant in relation to this issue to seek a resolution through the formal grievance procedure as per our Grievance Policy & Procedure.

JG gave direct evidence. She said that she meant the complainant about 11.am on the day in question and asked her what had happened. She learned that there had been an ‘exchange’ between the complainant and another employee. The complainant said to her ‘I’m done for the day’.

When she met the complainant on the following morning in the stockroom, she was calm and again the witness asked her for her version of what had happened and said that she would have to investigate further to find out what happened.

Regarding the alleged abuse said that EF was teaching her how to do her job but was disrespectful. The complainant alleged that the witness had done nothing about it, but she explained that she had to investigate it before she could do anything.  But she also pointed out to her that her behaviour in front of customers was disruptive and unacceptable.

The complainant left and did not start her shift.

In response to a question, it was confirmed that she did not have the authority to terminate anyone’s employment.

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

These are complaints under the Industrial Relations Act.

The sequence of events is set out in the submissions and in the evidence of the parties.

The complainant was involved in a training event when a dispute arose between her and the trainer related to what was the correct piece of equipment to be used.

It was alleged that the complainant said that she did not need to be told what to do in this context and it led to a bad-tempered exchange. In JG’s contemporaneous account of the incident (submitted for the hearing) a witness to the events described the exchange between the two protagonists as ‘mouthing’.

Whoever was at fault for this is one issue (and it may be that both parties contributed to it), but as this is a complaint of unfair dismissal it is what happens next that is more relevant.

The complainant’s manager, JG says that the complainant approached her shouting and saying that she (the complainant) was ‘done for the day’. The complainant left.

They met again the following day in the course of which the complainant alleged that her manager had done nothing to protect her, although she, (the manager) not unreasonably, said she would have to investigate the matter, although she did also draw attention to the complainant’s unacceptable conduct the previous day.

The complainant appears to have been insistent that her version of the incident did not need any further investigation and she alleges that the manager terminated her employment, by saying ‘we’re letting you go’ or telling her to leave.

In my view, on the basis of the submissions to, and evidence at the hearing, this is most improbable.

The manager (and the HR representative) confirmed that she did not have the authority to terminate anyone’s employment.

She would therefore have been placing herself in some jeopardy to have done so without such authority. The events of the previous day ought to have been fully investigated and only then could any action that was warranted be implemented.

It seems to me more likely that the complainant left her employment in a fit of pique, dismayed by the lack of immediate acceptance of her version of events.

I find therefore that her employment was not terminated by the respondent, nor was she justified in terminating it herself to the extent that she may have felt constructively dismissed, which is the basis of the second complaint above.

The complaints are dismissed.

Termination of employment