Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Service Station Assistant Manager

Service Station and Retail Company

Representatives

  Self-Represented

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, as amended.

CA-00055872-001

O3/04/2023

The Worker commenced employment on 22 August 2022 as Assistant Manager of a service station on a salary of €488 per week; net €430. He resigned by letter dated 14 October 2023 due to what he submits was an intolerable situation created by the Employer and submits that it amounts to unfair dismissal.

The following is the account of the Worker:

The Worker was working on a weekend as acting manager at the Employer’s service station. On the Monday he was approached by the Manager to say that there was an accusation that he, the Worker, “tried to touch and sit on” a member of staff in the office.  The complaint was made by a parent. After viewing the relevant CCTV footage, the Manager concluded that this allegation was false, and no such inappropriate behaviour was identified. The Worker submits there was no investigation into this, nor were proper procedures followed. He asked the Manager what she was going to do about this situation and was instructed by the  Manager to apologise to the staff member, which he did not do as the allegation was false. Nothing was done to resolve this situation and he was told “just to come back to work” and that there was no formal allegation against him.

The Worker felt that it is extremely unfair that the staff member had not been reprimanded about the making of a serious false allegation against him. He was subsequently informed that the staff member in question disclosed the nature of the allegation to another member of staff. He believed that disclosure belittled his position as Assistant Manager. He felt the rest of the staff had lost respect for him and trust in him as his name has not been cleared by management or the company.

He submits that had this allegation being managed correctly by management and formally investigated to comply with company policies and procedures, the final outcome of this situation would have been different, and his name would have been cleared.  He had formally asked that this would be dealt with through the grievance procedure. A regional manager corresponded with him to discuss his grievance, but he admits he resigned before the formal grievance had been proceeded with because he claims it became impossible for him to work under the circumstances where his reputation was irrefutably damaged by the negligence of the Employer to address his issue. He commenced employment with another employer shortly afterwards.

The Employer did not attend.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account the submission of the Worker only, in the absence of the Employer. The Worker gave a convincing account that the CCTV footage, which was viewed by both the Manager and him, exonerated him completely of any wrongdoing. The subsequent communications showed by him at the hearing from management would seem to back this up. The matter should have been addressed at once at local level, but inexplicably there was inaction by the Manager and the matter was allowed to fester to the detriment of the Worker. The Worker gave a convincing account of how intolerable it became for him in the workplace, his health suffered, and he could no longer turn up at work. Ideally, he should have waited for the formal grievance procedure to proceed but so serious was the situation as described,  that I believe his resignation was understandable under the circumstances. I also note that the Worker took up employment in a new position shortly after his resignation

Section 13 Industrial Relations Act 1969.