Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Worker

Employer

Representatives

  N/A

 N/A

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 - 00001373

07/05/2023

The Worker was employed by the Employer from October 2016 until January 2023 as a Swimming Teacher. The Worker outlined that he was bullied, culminating in his constructive dismissal on 23 January 2023. The Worker outlined in his Complaint Form, submitted to the WRC on 7 May 2023, that this dispute concerns bullying and harassment procedures.

The Worker was employed by the Employer from October 2016 until January 2023 as a Swimming Teacher. He initially worked six days per week and during the later stages of his employment, he worked four days per week – from Monday to Thursday inclusive. He worked approximately 15 hours per week, earning approximately €350-€400 per week. He enjoyed his job initially. He outlined that this changed in 2021 when a new Manager was appointed, who he believed, managed him in an “unreasonable” manner and made his position “untenable”.

The Worker outlined an incident on 14 March 2022 when he said that he had to teach in a swimming pool which was below the recommended temperature. It was too cold for him and for the children. He also has a medical condition, about which his Manager was aware, which is not conducive to teaching in cold water. When he tried to teach the final class that day from the poolside, he was embarrassed by his Manager who shouted at him to get back into the water. The Worker subsequently took sick leave due to work-related stress.

The Worker outlined another incident on 9 January 2023, concerning what he deemed a “spurious complaint” by a parent. The Worker took issue with how his Manager dealt with the parent’s complaint. The Worker outlined that the Manager passed the complaint to Management instead of dealing with it “at grassroots level”. On 13 January 2023, the Worker was emailed a letter by Management which outlined that, on foot of the complaint, an internal investigation had been launched and an investigation meeting would be held on 16 January 2023. The email indicated that the letter and investigation “did not constitute disciplinary action and do not imply any assumption that you are guilty of any misconduct”. The Worker was also provided with a copy of the Employer’s Formal Investigation Procedures and referred to the Employee Handbook. The Worker took issue with the fact that this email was sent to him on his day off. He also took issue with the fact that this email was not marked “confidential”. He stated that these were procedural breaches.

The Worker replied by email on 14 January 2023, stating “[t]his is ridiculous and a complete waste of time”. He requested that the child be removed from his class. He concluded the email by “suggest[ing] that this matter is now closed and [that he] expect[ed] the full support of [his] employers.” The Worker outlined that he never attended the investigation meeting scheduled for 16 January 2023 and heard nothing further about it.

The Worker outlined that on 20 January 2023, he received an email from his Manager who he believed was trying to “foist” an additional teacher upon him. He received this email on his day off. He was not happy with this as it was “intrusive” and he stated that this was a procedural breach. He outlined that he was already seeing improvements in the swim class and did not require any assistance. He outlined that he had an “angry telephone conversation” with his Manager later that same day.

The Worker outlined that on 23 January 2023 he requested a meeting with the General Manager. At this meeting, the Worker verbally outlined his grievances concerning the handling of the parent complaint dated 9 January 2023; and the suggestion of an additional teacher in the email dated 20 January 2023. During the meeting, the General Manager stated that he took the Worker’s views on board. The General Manager then spoke with the Manager. The General Manager subsequently told the Worker that he could not support him. The Worker responded that he found the situation extremely stressful and that he was taking sick leave with immediate effect and would probably not return. The Worker had no further contact with the Employer.

The Worker outlined that he now has a new role with greater pay and better working conditions.

In conclusion, the Worker outlined his belief that appropriate measures were not followed and some were “swept under the carpet”. The Worker also believed that the Employer was trying to get rid of the “older” swim teachers. He believed that his Manager was trying to force his resignation, in order to hire other swim teachers on lesser pay.

At the Hearing, the Worker was referred to the Employer’s Formal Investigation Procedures and the Employee Handbook as mentioned in his Complaint Form. The Worker outlined that he does not know anything about those documents. He outlined that, in his view, the General Manager’s response to his grievance on 23 January 2023 brought the grievance procedure to a close. The Worker said that as far as he was concerned, he had exhausted internal procedures.

The Employer did not attend the Hearing as scheduled.

On 11 August 2023, the WRC wrote to the Employer and informed them of the date, time and venue of the Hearing. The letter also set out the procedure regarding postponement requests.

On 14 September 2023, when the Employer did not attend the Hearing as scheduled, the WRC called the Employer. The Employer’s receptionist confirmed that the WRC had the correct email address on record. The receptionist was informed that the Hearing was progressing as scheduled that morning. A grace period was allowed to enable the Employer to attend or contact the WRC. The Employer did not do so.

In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Employer was on notice of the Hearing and had sufficient opportunity to attend.

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

It is well established that, before submitting a grievance about any matter to the WRC, an employee

must exhaust the internal procedures at their workplace. In Gregory Geoghegan t/a TAPS v. A

Worker, INT1014, the Labour Court held:

“The Court is not prepared to insert itself into the procedural process in a situation where the dispute procedures have been bypassed.”

The Worker outlined that he was bullied, culminating in his constructive dismissal on 23 January 2023. The Worker outlined in his Complaint Form that this dispute concerns bullying and harassment procedures.

In the same Complaint Form, the Worker refers to an email from Management dated 13 January 2023 which attached a copy of the Employer’s Formal Investigation Procedures and referred to the Employee Handbook. While the Worker indicated that he does not know anything about those documents, his Complaint Form confirms that he was on notice of them.

On 23 January 2023, the Worker verbally outlined his grievances to the General Manager. He believed that the General Manager’s response brought the grievance procedure to a close. The Worker did not follow this meeting up in writing or otherwise. Instead, he immediately left the premises and never returned. He did not engage further with the Employer. As it has not been shown that the internal procedures have been exhausted, I cannot insert myself into the procedural process. In the circumstances, the Worker’s dispute is without merit and I do not make a recommendation in favour of the Worker.

Industrial Relations Act, section 13, Bullying and harassment, Internal procedures.