ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: ADJ-00050855
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | Security Officer | Security Company |
Representatives | N/A | N/A |
Dispute:
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act | CA-00059398-001 | 15/10/2023 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Elizabeth Spelman
Date of Hearing: 15/03/2024
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.
As this is a trade dispute under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 as amended, the Hearing took place in private and the Parties are not named.
The Worker (the “Security Officer”) attended the Hearing and represented himself. The Employer (the “Security Company”) had two Managers in attendance on its behalf.
Background:
On 27 April 2017, the Security Officer commenced work with his previous employer. On 1 June 2023, following a transfer of undertaking process, the Security Officer commenced working for the Security Company. The Security Officer worked a maximum of 48 hours per week, earning €12.65 per hour plus the JLC night allowance where applicable. The Security Officer outlines that following the transfer, his terms and conditions of employment were changed and he was constructively dismissal. The Security Company denies the allegations in their entirety. |
Summary of Worker’s Case:
The Security Officer provided detailed written and oral submissions. The Security Officer outlined that following a transfer of undertaking process, his terms and conditions of employment were changed. The Security Officer outlined that he raised his concerns with his Manager, but to no avail. The Security Officer outlined that when he refused to complete a Manual Handling Couse, he was unilaterally removed from the roster, resulting in his alleged constructive dismissal. The Security Officer outlined that he had a copy of the Security Company’s Employee Handbook and that it was also accessible online. The Security Officer outlined that he signed it electronically to show that he “agreed” with it. The Security Officer also outlined that he had been in contact with the HR Department regarding the transfer. The Security Officer outlined that he had concerns regarding, inter alia, his pay and duties. He further outlined that his efforts to resolve his concerns with his Manager were unsuccessful. He outlined that he did not escalate his concerns to the HR Department. He outlined that “he made a decision that there was no future with the company”. The Security Officer outlined that he resigned on 8 August 2023. His outlined that his last date of employment was 13 August 2023 and that he commenced employment with a new employer approximately five days later. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Manager provided oral submissions on behalf of the Security Company. The Manager outlined that the Security Company cannot force employees to complete the Manual Handling Course. The Manager outlined that he told the Security Officer that the Security Company would look for a role for him on another site. The Manager outlined that it was a difficult situation as their other client data centres were at full capacity. The Manager outlined that the Security Officer resigned on 8 August 2023 and that he worked until 13 August 2023. The second Manager present outlined that once the Security Company received the Security Officer’s notice, they stopped looking for alternative roles for him and that is why he was not rostered. The Manager outlined that the Security Company has a full grievance procedure outlined in its Employee Handbook which is located in the “Blue Folder”. The Manager outlined that the Security Officer is familiar with the HR Department and had liaised with the HR Department concerning the transfer of undertaking process. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the Parties.
It is well established that a worker is required to exhaust the company’s internal grievance procedures, in an effort to resolve their grievance, prior to resigning and submitting a claim for constructive dismissal. This is clearly set out in Reid v. Oracle EMEA Ltd, UD1350/2014:
“It is incumbent on any employee to utilise and exhaust all internal remedies made available to him or her unless he can show that the said remedies are unfair.”
The Security Officer outlined that he raised his grievance with his Manager, but he did not escalate it any further. The Security Officer outlined that he was familiar with, and could access, the Employee Handbook. He further outlined that he had previously corresponded with the HR Department. The Security Officer outlined that “he made a decision that there was no future with the company”. He resigned on 8 August 2023.
As the Security Officer failed to utilise and exhaust all internal remedies made available to him, I conclude that the Security Officer’s dispute is without merit. In the circumstances, I recommend that the Security Company takes no further action. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I conclude that the Security Officer’s dispute is without merit and I recommend that the Security Company takes no further action.
Dated: 05th of April 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Elizabeth Spelman
Key Words:
Industrial Relations Act, section 13, Constructive dismissal. |