Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Shop Assistant

Supermarket

Representatives

Self-Represented

Self-Represented

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

IR - SC - 00000488

24/07/2022

The Worker commenced employment on 25th April 2022. The Worker’s tenure was brief, with the same being terminated on the grounds of resignation on 24th July 2022.

On 24th July 2022, the final date of employment, the Worker referred the present dispute to the Commission. Herein, she alleged the Respondent acted unreasonably in contacting her whilst on sick leave and by continuing to place her on the roster when she stated she was unavailable. By subsequent submission, the Employer denied these allegations.

While the Employer initially objected to these disputes progressing under the Act, said objection was received outside of the statutory timeframe for such matters and consequently the matter proceeded to hearing.

Said hearing was convened for, and finalised on, 6th June 2023. This hearing was 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.

Both sides issued extensive submissions in advance of the hearing. These submissions were expanded upon and contested during the hearing.

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

The Worker was engaged as a shop assistant by the Employer. The Worker is a student and intended to work for the Employer for the Summer months only pending her return to university.  

On three occasions, the Worker had cause to leave her shift early as she was feeling unwell. On each of these occasions, the Employer contact the Worker to ask her if she would return to work as nobody was available to cover her shift. On one such occasion, the Worker returned to work, despite feeling well, as she felt that she was obliged to do so.

On 9th July, the Worker advised that she would be required to reduce her working time to two mornings per week as commitments had arisen regarding her college course. The Worker also stated that she intended to finish her employment at the end of that month and move back to recommence her university course. On the request of the Employer, the Worker agreed to complete that week of full-time hours on the basis that the following weeks’ hours would be reduced. When the following weeks’ roster was produced, the Worker was issued with numerous shifts, spread across the morning and afternoon. When the Employee stated that she was unavailable for such hours, the Employer questioned her commitment to the role and stated that she was letting her co-workers down. Thereafter, the Complainant was asked to work on a Sunday of her final week. When the Complainant stated that she was not, her hours were removed for her final week of employment.

By submission, the Worker stated that the above narrative of event demonstrates unfair and unreasonable conduct on the part of the Employer.

Regarding the first issue raised by the Worker, the Employer stated that he did not recall the individual dates the Worker was out sick. Nonetheless, he did state that he accepted that he may have contacted her on days that she went home. The purpose of the same was to enquire as to whether the Worker would be in position to finish their shift following a period of recuperation. He stated that the Worker, or any other employee, could simply decline to come in and that would be the end of the matter.

Regarding the second issue, the Employer denied receipt of the Worker’s notice and intention to reduce her rostered hours. He stated that the Worker simply informed him that she would be unable to complete many of the rostered shists due to college commitments. Regarding the conversation referred to by the Complainant, he submitted that he stated that he required two weeks’ notice of any intention to reduce working time and that the Worker’s request in this regard would have a knock-on effect for the business and her former colleagues.

The Employer denied removing the Worker from the roster thereafter, stating that the Worker was engaged until her final week of employment. 

Having regard to the foregoing, the Employer denied that the Complainant was subjected any form of unreasonable treatment in the course of her employment.

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

Regarding the first aspect of the dispute, it is apparent that the Worker was required to leave work early on three occasions as she was feeling unwell. Thereafter, it is common case that the Employer contacted her, at least once, asking if she would return to work.

When an employee takes the decision to go home, it can be safely assumed that they did so because they believed themselves to be unfit to continue working that day. In such circumstances any reasonable employer would simply leave the Worker alone snd allow them to recover, so long as they comply with the requirements of their internal absence policy. While the Employer may simply have been enquiring as to the Complainant’s availability for the rest of the day, I can appreciate how the Worker may have subjectively felt that she was oliged to return to work. Having regard to the foregoing, I recommend in favour of the Worker in relation to this aspect of the dispute.

Regarding the second aspect of the dispute, it is apparent that the Worker sought to reduce her working hours to focus on her university commitments. The first point to note in relation to the same, is that the employment was always intended to be a short-term summer engagement. The Employer was also aware, from the outset, that the Worker was a student. As such, it should have been no surprise that the Worker would have commitments in this regard. Having reviewed the text message submitted by the Employer, it is apparent that the Worker informed the Employer of her need to reduce her hours and gave notice to that effect. In these circumstances, I find that the Employer’s statement during the call of 19th July to be unreasonable. It is common case that the Worker was engaged on a ad hoc basis, with her hours changing depending on the requirements of the Employer. Nonetheless, when the Worker sought to reduce her hours on the basis of her own requirements, one the Employer would have been on notice of throughout the employment, she was taken to task regarding her apparent lack of commitment to the role and the effect the request would have on her co-workers. During the hearing, the Worker described this conversation as a “guilt trip”, and having considered all the information presented at the hearing, it is difficult to disagree with this assessment.

Having regard to the foregoing, I also recommend in favour of the Worker in relation to this aspect of the dispute.

Ad-hoc, Reduction