FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES: CRAFT RESTAURANT - AND - A WORKER DIVISION:
SUBJECT: 1.Complaint under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. RECOMMENDATION: The Worker was employed as General Manager of Craft Restaurant from October 2022 until his resignation in February 2023. His annual salary was €35,000.00. The Worker told the Court that he resigned from his position because he had made several complaints to the Proprietor of the business about the conduct of a fellow employee towards him and the Proprietor failed to take appropriate action to address the matters he had complained about. The Worker denied ever receiving an Employee Handbook and submitted that he was unaware that a formal grievance process was in place that he could have availed himself of. The Worker also told the Court that he had worked for a short number of days elsewhere in the restaurant trade after his resignation before deciding to change career. He now runs his own antique furniture business. The Proprietor submits that the Worker never referred a formal grievance to him but he accepted that the Worker had complained to him about a particular colleague’s conduct towards him. The Proprietor said that he had spoken to the colleague in question but had not reverted to the Worker in relation to his complaint. In response to a question from the Court, the Proprietor admitted that he had not personally given a copy of the Handbook to the Worker as he had assumed that the former General Manager had done so during a three-day handover period that occurred at the beginning of Worker’s period of employment. Discussion and Recommendation The Court finds that both Parties contributed to the breakdown in their working relationship. The Worker said that his decision to change career within a short time of leaving his employment was prompted by a realisation that the restaurant business was “not for him”. It can be inferred from the Worker’s comments in this regard that he may not have been very well suited to role he had been employed in. This in turn may have reflected itself in the manner in which he engaged with his colleagues. Nevertheless, an employer has primary responsibility to ensure that its policies and procedures are brought to its employees’ attention. An employer also has a duty to employees to address grievances raised by them about issues in the workplace, whether the issues are raised in accordance with a formal grievance procedure (where one is in place) or otherwise (where the employee has not been notified of such a procedure). In the latter case, the employer is expected to act in accordance with SI 146 of 2000 – the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures. In this instance, the Proprietor did not take the appropriate steps to ensure that the Worker was aware of the Employee Handbook or of the grievance procedure therein. Nor did the Proprietor revert to the Worker to advise him what his findings were in relation to the complaint he had raised about his colleague’s alleged improper treatment towards him. The Proprietor, therefore, the Court finds, fell short of the requirements of best practice in this regard. In the light of the above findings, the Court recommends that the Worker should receive compensation of €500.00 from his former employer. The Court so recommends.
NOTE Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Therese Hickey, Court Secretary. |
