ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: ADJ-00047793
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Regional Manager | A Jewellery Chain |
Representatives |
| N/A |
Dispute(s):
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-00054436 | 10/01/2023 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill
Date of Hearing: 20/07/2023
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended)following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute.
The Worker attended the hearing on her own. Although I am satisfied that the Employer was aware of the time and date of the hearing, they chose not to attend on the day.
Background:
The Worker commenced her employment as a Regional Manager with the Employer on 18 January 2022 and was paid €66,000 per annum. She alleged that she was dismissed on 30 August 2022 because of her disclosure to the Employer that her mother had been diagnosed with a terminal illness. Specifically, she perceived that the employer had no intention of offering her any support either during that challenging period or following her mother's inevitable passing. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The Worker commenced in her role on 18 January 2022 and stated that her first performance review meeting was held in person on 8 April 2022 with her line manager. During this review process, all aspects of the role and her performance were examined and she received an outstanding rating and feedback. On Tuesday 19 April 2022, her mother was admitted to hospital as she had fallen into a coma. At no stage was the Worker offered any support and was pressurized by the Employer to attend meetings in the UK around this time. Although her line manager stressed the importance of attending these UK based meetings, the Worker stated that she felt her mother was too ill for her to be outside of the country. As she had missed several UK meetings however, she stated that her line manager made it very clear to her that she would need to attend the next meeting which was over two days in the UK. She stated that she felt under huge pressure to attend regardless of how sick her mother was and had no choice but to go. In May 2022, she was tasked with the opening of a brand-new flagship store in another Irish city. During the preparation and planning period for the new store, her father had a serious motorbike accident further to which he was taken by ambulance to hospital. The new Irish store was successfully opened on 16 June 2022 and the feedback from the Worker’s line manager was that this was the most successful and organized opening of a store she had ever witnessed. Further to this, the Worker’s probation was signed off. On 22 June 2022, there was a two-day training event taking place in the UK in which a performance rating tool was being implemented by the Employer and rolled out to regional managers. Although the Worker stated that she was reluctant to travel to the UK given the medical circumstances of her parents, she was left with little alternative but to do so by the Employer. During this two-day event, she had a meeting with the HR business partners as well as the head of HR. The team delivered the new performance management tool and advised the managers that they should expect a backlash from staff following its implementation but that they would be there to support them. Upon her return from the UK, the Worker was called to an emergency family meeting in the hospital in relation to her mother's continued illness where she was informed that the doctors could do nothing more for her and gave her a life expectancy of a few weeks. On the day on which she was informed of this news, the Worker’s line manager telephoned her and informed her that grievances had been raised by two managers on the same day in relation to some concerns they had with her. She was told not to worry however as the business had expected this to happen on the back of the new performance management tool. Given her difficult personal circumstances, the Worker informed her line manager that it would be best if she chose to resign. Her manager assured her that a resignation was unnecessary because she had read the concerns and there was nothing to worry about because she hadn't done anything wrong. She did state however that the Worker should not engage with the employees who had made the complaints against her pending the investigation into the allegations. Although she received no formal outcome or update on the investigation after a further 2 weeks had passed, she was told to re-engage with the employees who had made the complaints. On 20 July 2022, the Worker stated that she received a call from her line manager and was requested to attend a probation review meeting the next working day. The Worker informed her that her probation had been signed off the previous month but the line manager did not reply. The next day, she attended her doctor and he instructed her to take time from work immediately. She also subsequently contacted her Employer to ask them to investigate her treatment by her line manager. A conference call was held in late July by the line manager with the Worker’s team in her absence. Her line manager proceeded to advise the team that the Worker had taken some time out of the business. Her team asked the line manager if the Worker’s mother had died and she led them to believe that she had. The Worker’s colleagues asked if they could organise flowers and her line manager said that she would do so on behalf of the team. The Worker also stated that her role had been advertised on irishjobs.ie while she was off on sick leave. When she went to update her line manager on her absence, the Worker turned on her work phone and received several messages of condolence on the death of her mother from her team. She stated that it was very difficult for her to explain to the team that her mother had not in fact died. Upon the Worker’s subsequent return to the business on 26 August 2022, she had a call with her line manager. The line manager went through some updates to the business and asked the Worker to introduce a new recruit to the team in one of the stores. Her line manager also asked the Worker to attend two stores over the weekend and informed her that it would only be the two of them on the Monday call on 29 August 2022 because her UK colleague would not be in attendance. The line manager did not subsequently attend the Monday call however. The Worker was subsequently informed by one of the store managers that the line manager was in her store at the time the call was due to take place introducing the Worker’s temporary replacement to the store manager. On Tuesday 30 August 2022, the Worker’s probation review meeting was held. Although, she stated at the meeting that she was uncomfortable because she hadn’t been given the opportunity to prepare anything and had also made a grievance against her line manager when she went out sick which wasn't resolved, the meeting continued regardless. Her line manager started the meeting by apologising to the Worker for seeing her role advertised but explained that Q4 was the busiest time of the year and that she needed someone with their “head in the game”. She proceeded to read a script formally dismissing the Worker for reasons of conduct. Specifically, the line manager stated that the Worker was deemed to have raised her voice on a Teams call and this was not in line with the Employer’s values. The Worker stated that the meeting was a disciplinary outcome disguised as a probation review. She subsequently did not receive anything in writing to explain why the termination had taken place and was not afforded the opportunity to appeal her dismissal. The Worker stated her belief that she was dismissed because of the impending death of her mother and asserted that the Employer did not want to support her in the period around or after this. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Employer did not attend the hearing and did not present any evidence in relation to this dispute. |
Conclusions:
While there may have been substantive reasons behind the Employer’s decision to dismiss the Worker, I note that these were not presented by way of evidence at the hearing. I also find that the procedures adopted fell short of the standard set out in SI 146/2000. Specifically, I am not satisfied, based on the evidence presented by the Worker, that it was made clear that her position would be terminated at the end of her probationary period if her performance or conduct were not deemed to be unacceptable. It should also be highlighted that the purported allegations that resulted in the Worker’s dismissal were not communicated to her prior to the meeting on August 30, 2022, when her employment was terminated, preventing her from defending herself. I also note that she was not afforded the opportunity to appeal the decision to dismiss her. Considering all of the foregoing, I find that the conduct of the Employer was wholly unreasonable, and that the dismissal of the Worker was unfair. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
Taking all of the circumstances of this case into account, I recommend in favour of the Worker and find that the Employer should pay compensation in the amount of €33,000 in respect of the dismissal.
Dated: 17th October, 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill
Key Words:
|