Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Patricia  Maher

Blarney Montessori School Ltd. (T/A Blarney Montessori Group)

Representatives

  Self-represented

 Internal/Self-represented

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00057601-001

08/07/2023

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00057601-002

08/07/2023

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00057601-003

08/07/2023

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00057601-005

08/07/2023

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00057601-006

08/07/2023

The Complainant worked for the Respondent as a teacher, for pre-school aged children, for two academic years, between late August 2021 until the end of June 2023. She submits that worked 19.5 hours per week and was paid €261.93.

She submits that her final week’s wages was short €6.75, the equivalent of a half-hour’s wages. This is denied by the Respondent, which submits that the €6.75 was not due to her. However, the Respondent further submits, that in the interest of good relations, when the Complainant raised the issue, it paid her the €6.75. The Complainant acknowledges that she received the money the same day she requested the money. The Complainant submits that this fact pattern constitutes constructive dismissal, and on that basis has filed a complaint under s. 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 (CA-00057601-006).

Additionally, the Complainant filed a number of complaints under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, as follows:-

CA-00057601-001: “I was not notified in writing of a change to my terms of employment.” The Complainant alleges that the second contract (which pertained to the academic year 2022/2023) issued to her constituted an attempt to alter her contract to a “zero hours contract.” The Respondent denies this claim; and further submits that the Complainant always had clarity around the hours per week she was contracted to work and had the same work pattern each week, throughout the academic year (end of August through the end of June).

CA-00057601-002: An alleged shortfall of €6.75 made to the Complainant’s wages without her consent. The Respondent denies this claim. At hearing, the Complainant acknowledged that she received the €6.75 later the same day.

CA-00057601-003: The Complainant alleges that she did not receive her core terms, within the time prescribed, within the applicable legislation. This is denied by the Respondent, which submits that the Complainant was provided with a fixed-term contract for each year of work, and that she signed it. It further submits that there was no lack of clarity around how many hours per week she worked or what work pattern; that those were the same each week.

CA-00057601-005: An alleged second probationary period applied to the Complainant. This claim is denied by the Respondent.

At the hearing, the Complainant represented herself and gave evidence on her own behalf.

The Complainant maintained that she had been constructively dismissed by the Respondent. She suggested that she had not received €6.75 that was due to her, and that she had to query it with her employer. She acknowledged that even though her employer provided an explanation that the money was not due to her, it had paid the €6.75 to her the same day she raised the issue. Ten days later, the Complainant filed a complaint for constructive dismissal with the WRC.

She expressed how upset, angry and hurt she was at how she perceived she had been treated, in respect of the alleged shortfall of €6.75. She characterised her treatment as her being “disrespected” by her employer, and the alleged shortfall of €6.75 as “a kick in the teeth.” She said that she felt “disappointed”, that she “felt discriminated”, that it “told me how much I was valued” and alleged that employer was “lying” to her. She characterised herself as being “appalled by it” and “wondering: ‘What did I do wrong?” She submitted that it constituted a “complete breach of trust” and that she could not continue to work for her employer, as a result. Emotive correspondences – text messages she had sent her employer were submitted as part of the case. The Complainant suggested in respect of the meeting proposed for August, that she feared that she would be “ambushed”; and submitted that when she told her employer “Good Luck” in respect of their proposed meeting, that she was wishing them good luck for the summer. She outlined that she had resigned “very rapidlyonce I knew I was going.”

As per her complaint form, the Complainant also made a series of allegations in respect of the terms and conditions of her employment – that she had not received her core terms, that she had been subject to a second probationary period, and that she had not received €6.75 due and owing to her.

The Respondent denies the Complainant’s claims.

The two owners of the Respondent business, Ms. Maguerite Morley and Ms. Claire Connelly appeared at the hearing and gave evidence.

Ms. Morley emphasised that the Complainant was a valued member of staff in terms of her work with the children, acknowledged her work and dedication, and submitted that she had been provided with a reference reflecting that, when contacted by a potential employer.

However, she said that the Complainant’s attitude and engagement with the Respondent in relation to this had been problematic, and had caused upset, that the Complainant was not correct in her assertions as to how she had been treated.

Ms. Morley, on behalf of the Respondent, emphasised that they would love to be in a position to pay their staff more, and outlined the constraints within which they operated in the childcare sector. She explained that the Complainant had been paid in full, that she had certainly not been dismissed constructively or otherwise. She emphasised the difficulty in getting staff in the childcare sector and the wish to retain good staff when you find them and how good the Complainant was at her job and with the children. She outlined that the Complainant worked very hard, and that she was always thanked and appreciated for her work. She outlined ways in which the Respondent had supported and helped the Complainant – she specifically highlighted the Respondent supporting the Complainant in doing a leadership course in childcare; and also in facilitating time off, some of it paid, when the Complainant required it due to personal circumstances, at a time which caused some inconvenience to the Respondent. She also denied, on behalf of the Respondent, the other allegations outlined by the Complainant with respect to the Complainant’s terms of employment. Ms. Morley also outlined that it had treated this issue with confidentiality and contrasted it with the Complainant’s approach of contacting parents; and emphasised the imbalance between the behaviour required of a reasonable employer not being met in equal part by the how the employee behaved.

Ms. Connolly outlined the correspondences (text messages) with the Complainant, and her involvement in those. She emphasised her objection to the Complainant’s attitude and approach, and how upsetting she found the correspondences of the Complainant, which she perceived as aggressive. She described the responses of the Complainant as “irrational.”

The Respondent emphasised the impropriety of the Complainant contacting parents, and the Respondent then being contacted by a parent raising the issue. It was in this context that the Complainant had been removed from the parents’ Whatsapp group.

Constructive dismissal

The Complainant submits that her final week’s wages was short €6.75, the equivalent of a half-hour’s wages. This is denied by the Respondent, which submits that the €6.75 was not due to her. However, the Respondent further submits, that in the interest of good relations, when the Complainant raised the issue, it paid her the €6.75. The Complainant acknowledges that she received the money, within 24 hours of her requesting the money. The Complainant submits that this fact pattern constitutes constructive dismissal.

I am satisfied that even had the Complainant been correct in her assertion that she had unbroken service working for the Respondent, and had she been correct in her assertion there was a shortfall of €6.75 in her final pay-cheque, which was immediately addressed at her request (whether or not it was owed to her, and I note that the Respondent denies that it was owed to her), that that does not meet anything approaching the threshold required for a successful claim of constructive dismissal.

I am further satisfied that as the Complainant had two fixed term contracts, and was in receipt of jobseekers’ benefit for six (6) weeks during the summer between the contracts, she has insufficient service to come within the parameters of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977.

Inappropriate Engagement with a Parent

The Complainant exhibited emotionally driven responses both in her interactions with her former employer, but more significantly, in her entirely inappropriate engagement with a parent of one of the children attending the Respondent’s business. In response to an intervention by the Adjudication Officer at the hearing, the Complainant who was self-represented, accepted that it was not appropriate for her to privately contact the parent (whose contact details she only had access to, through her job at the Respondent company, and who had therefore only consented to be contacted by or on behalf of the Respondent); that the parent declining to provide the Complainant with a reference did not constitute a “betrayal” as alleged, that the parent had no obligation of any kind to provide a reference to the Complainant; and the Complainant undertook that she would not contact the parent in question again or contact any other parent whose contact details she only had access to by virtue of her prior employment, going forward. The tone and nature of the communications with that parent, by the Complainant, are inappropriate.

The Complainant outlined that she had actually contacted four parents, not just one.

The Complainant has also made a series of assertions against her former, including but not limited to accusing her former employer of “lying” to her. I find those assertions to be unfounded.

CA-00057601-001 – “I was not notified in writing of a change to my terms of employment.” The Complainant alleged that the Respondent was seeking to alter her contract to a “zero hours contract.” No evidence was provided in support of this allegation, by the Complainant; and the evidence provided by both sides strongly contradicted it. The Complainant worked standard hours at all times, and had the same work pattern every week. The Complainant sought to rely upon a text message requesting she provide a clarification, to advance this complaint. I find that this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00057601-002 – Alleged shortfall of €6.75 in pay-cheque. The Respondent denies it was due to the Complainant; and it is common case that the €6.75 was, nevertheless, paid to the Complainant within 24 hours of her raising the alleged shortfall. I find that this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00057601-003 – Core Terms: I find that this complaint is out of time. Taking the Complainant’s case at its height, the complaint was filed with respect to the blank “Core Terms” document was filed eleven (11) months after the alleged failure. In her evidence, the Complainant sought to rely on a time-line dating back to 2021, some twenty-three (23) months earlier. I find that this aspect of the complaint is not well founded.

For completeness, a comprehensive 14 page contract, which was signed both by the Complainant and on behalf of her employer on August 18th 2021, was issued to her prior to her initial period of employment with the Respondent employer.

Despite her evidence to the contrary, it is also clear from the text messages between the Complainant and the other employees that there was no confusion as to her hours, work pattern or rate of pay, none of which altered week to week.

CA-00057601-005 – Probationary period: I find, as a matter of fact, that the Complainant was not subject to a second probationary period. I find that this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00057601-006 – For the reasons set out above, I find that this complaint, of constructive dismissal, is not well founded.

Constructive Dismissal; Terms of Employment (Information) Act;