ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: ADJ-00047914
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | Quality Control Engineer | Manufacturer Medical Applications |
Representatives | Self | IBEC |
Dispute(s):
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Industrial Relations Act 1969 | CA-00058884 | 18/09/23 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Janet Hughes
Date of Hearing: 16/01/2024
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(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute. The terms employer and employee are used to denote the parties to the dispute.
Background:
This dispute is concerned with the reasons for the decision of the employee to resign less than twelve months after he joined the company and having been made permanent during his employment. Although not covered by the Unfair Dismissals Act, the dispute amounts to a claim of constructive dismissal which is rejected by the employer. The employee was employed in two different roles during his employment. Quality Documentation and Training Specialist was a role in which he was made permanent in February 2023. The employment relationship commenced on 21 November 2022 and concluded 21 May 2023. At the time of termination, the rate of pay was €44000 per annum. |
Summary of Workers Case:
On the WRC referral form, the employee provided a detailed chronology of dates and events during his employment. At the hearing, he was asked to identify the issues which led to his decision to resign and which he is putting forward as the basis of his side of the claim to the effect that he was forced to resign from the employment due to the conduct of the employer. He identified three issues 1. Excessive workload. He had notified the employer of this issue but he was still expected to perform an excessive workload which led to his absence on certified sick leave on grounds of stress. The period when he was under the most pressure was after he was appointed to the permanent role between March and 24 April 2023. 2. 03.05.23 The manner in which the return-to-work meeting was conducted by his supervisor on this date. He was berated for being absent and described as incapable of doing the job. 3. 03.05.23 Recording of a chat session without his knowledge or agreement which he gave on the same day as the return-to-work meeting. Arranged by his supervisor.
The employee described the period of his employment in 2023 in particular as tumultuous. At one point he was performing three roles. On his return-to-work meeting, it was made very very clear to him that he was no longer wanted. No support was offered for the ongoing G.E. role. In response to that meeting he drafted his note of the meeting which he submitted to HR on 04.05.23-the day after the return-to-work meeting. The employee pointed to the speed with which his resignation was accepted by the supervisor-twenty minutes after he sent it to her by email, as confirming that he was no longer wanted in the employment. Also, on 04.05.23 he raised the issue of the recording of the meeting and it was referred to HR-the recording was subsequently deleted and he was informed that this should not have happened without his knowledge. In his referral form he stated that the deletion of the recording was not confirmed until 12.05.23. In response to the employer submission, he initially said there was no contact after 05.05 and he could not recall meetings with him on 08 and 10 May, but later acknowledged he could see that there was a meeting on 10 .05. The main concern in HR was with the recording of the meeting. There was an exit interview on 19.05(his final day). The employee remained in the employment for two weeks for various reasons, including financial. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The summary of the employers response on the three items was as follows: The employer never breached the terms and conditions of the employee. Support was provided to alleviate the workload. All three issues described by the employee were addressed in one-to-one meetings. It was not unusual that chat meetings would be recorded and, in this case, it was done for training purposes to assist with the handover of the workload of the employee. While permission to record is also the usual practice, there was a technical misunderstanding on this occasion. The recording was deleted. None of the issues were raised as a formal grievance during the employment. Had this happened, further supports could have been provided during the employment. The employer confirmed that the line supervisor was authorised to accept a resignation. Following his resignation, there was a workload meeting on 05.05 and further meetings with the employee on 8 and 10 May 2023 to discuss his concerns. Given his position that the circumstances were such that he was forced to resign it should be noted that the employee remained in the employment for over two weeks after he submitted his resignation. IBEC submitted that it is well accepted by the WRC and the Labour Court that internal procedures must be utilised before referring disputes to these third parties and that, in the absence of an employee utilising those procedures, neither the WRC nor the Labour Court would intervene in a dispute. |
Conclusions:
The documentation submitted indicates various issues, all important to the employee, all occurring in a fairly intense period in April/early May 2023. Although not mentioned by the employee at the hearing, his referral form also provides detail of concerns to the point of disagreement he had regarding the contractual terms of the permanent appointment also occurring around the key dates in late April early May. Indeed, he referred to the terms of the contract in his letter to HR on 4 May. After what anyone reading it was entitled to regard as a resignation, the employee then clarified it as not his resignation, only what he intended to do-a bizarre statement related only to his own concerns about social welfare entitlements. It really is not for the undersigned to determine whether or not the employee or the employers assessment regarding a workload are the most reasonable. Certainly, it might be expected that with the departure of other employees the employee in this dispute did have an additional workload and at the same time that the employer was not in a position to provide an immediate back fill for two other positions but did endeavour to provide support-which was acknowledged at the one-to-one meeting on 10 May 2023. A fairly short-term staffing problem which the employer was trying to resolve could not be accepted in and of itself as providing the basis of a conclusion that the employee has a valid claim that he had no option or was forced to resign in the circumstances in early May, or at least that he should be compensated. To complete this point, it is noted that the resignation on 4 May was from the six-month temporary contract for which the employee was originally engaged which further suggests that his contractual issues were a significant issue for him at the time. I am satisfied that there was a meeting with the employee on 10.05.23 and that the employee was not open to changing his mind at that stage but that the employer was open to facilitating him albeit he had resigned. That offer of consideration of other roles does not indicate support for the employees view that the employer no longer wanted him, even at that late stage. Where any reasonable person would observe a legitimate concern on the part of the employee was in the conduct of the return-to-work meeting by the line supervisor on 03.05.23. Each employee has their own record and account of that meeting. The employees account was sent to the employer and if they had any concerns about the content, they could have advised the employee to use the grievance procedure. Because on the face of it, his account represented a very serious issue to be addressed by any employer. Either it was largely correct, in which case a supervisor was saying that an employee was ‘not fit for the role’ and that ‘he should seek employment elsewhere’ or, the notes were merely an impression formed by an employee from a perfectly reasonable conversation in response to the issues he was raising containing serious, but unfounded allegations against the supervisor. At the same time, there is the record of the return-to-work meeting prepared by the supervisor which records the employee as suffering from job stress ‘can not handle the workload capacity’. Unintentionally or otherwise, this reads as a negative assessment of the employee, especially when read alongside the entry for further action required - N/A. This was an employee who when out for the first time in the employment was certified as suffering from ‘job stress.’ While the employer refers to all subsequent actions by them including the workload meeting on the following day, it is difficult to see any expression of concern for the employee in the manner in which the form was completed. The recording of the chat session occurred the same day. In all of the circumstances I do not consider the employers reliance on a failure to complete a formal grievance procedure in this case as a complete defence in this case. There are ,I think and indeed hope, lessons to be learned in the employment about the handling of return to work meetings, recordings of internal meetings, contractual discussions and complaints by an employee regarding the conduct of same. At the same time, the employee in this instance did not give the employer as in HR any real time to address his issues between the time of forwarding his record of the return-to-work meeting and submitting his resignation. The qualification of his resignation email was, as I have indicated, bizarre or at best confusing. Some of his views around the contract, for example regarding working elsewhere implying a threat to his educational pursuits, were unreasonable. In summary, not a perfect case on either side by any means. One which I recommend be resolved by payment to the employee of a gesture of goodwill of €1000 on the basis of particular concerns about the employer record of that return-to-work meeting followed by the undisclosed recording of the meeting, both of which undoubtedly formed a major part in the decision of the employee to resign the next day.
|
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
In all of the circumstances, I recommend the employer pay the employee €1000 compensation as a gesture of goodwill and to bring about a resolution of this dispute.
Dated: 13th February 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Janet Hughes
Key Words:
|