ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: ADJ-00052124
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Retail Worker | A Retail Company |
Representatives | Self-represented | Julie Galbraith Eversheds Sutherland |
Dispute:
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Industrial Relations Act 1969 | CA-00063965 | 05/04/2023 and 18/07/2023 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Date of Hearing:
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.
Background:
The Worker claims she was unfairly dismissed by way of constructive dismissal following disputes with managers and fellow employees.
Summary of Workers Case:
The Worker was employed by the Respondent from 9 October 2022 to 30 January 2023. She submitted an outline of events and incidents pertaining to her employment over the period of her employment. She submitted 44 pages of details of her experiences working in the retail store. She recounted incidents with fellow employees and the Store Manager and the Floor Manager. She stated that her contracted hours were changed and that she had many disputes with others in the employment and that she was not supported. She did not take a formal complaint as she believed she did not have to do so, as the Employer should have protected her. She alleges that a Lecturer from her college called in to the Store on one occasion. She questions why that individual was there, asked her was she in trouble and she surmised that the person was sent in to check on her as a form of reference.
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Employer refutes the Worker’s allegations, denies that she was constructively dismissed and denies that there was any infringement of the Unfair Dismissals Acts in relation to her employment.
The Worker has brought her claim for constructive dismissal under the Unfair Dismissals Acts. Constructive dismissal is defined under the Unfair Dismissals Acts as:
“the termination by the employee of their contract of employment with their employer, whether prior notice of the termination was or was not given to the employer, in circumstances in which, because of the conduct of the employer, the employee was or would have been entitled, or it was or would have been reasonable for the employee, to terminate the contract of employment without giving prior notice of the termination to the employer”.
In a claim of constructive dismissal, the burden of proof is on the Worker to establish that either (a) she was entitled to terminate his employment due to the breach of a fundamental term of the contract of employment or (b) the actions of her employer were so unreasonable that it was reasonable for her to terminate her employment.
The Employer has comprehensive policies and procedures in relation to grievances and dignity at work. The Worker did not engage with the grievance policy or dignity at work policies.
For the avoidance of doubt, there was no investigation being carried out and the store manager and deputy store manager have no idea what it being alleged by the Worker in her complaint form. No matters of dispute were addressed from staff to managers. There was a personal matter of dispute related to the Worker. She did not clock in for a period of time and then queried why she had not been paid. This was resolved by the Respondent and the Worker was paid for her hours worked.
The Worker has also pointed to an incident in December 2022 which involved one her “lecturers” coming into the store and asking her if she was in trouble. Once again, the Employer has had no prior knowledge of this incident occurring and has only learned of it by reading the Complaint Form. The Employer does not ask for referees and does not check referees or previous jobs prior to employment. Therefore the Employer had no knowledge of any lecturer related to the Worker. The store management has no knowledge as to what this comment could relate to.
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. The Worker, who was employed by the Employer for in or around 12 weeks, had many complaints about her fellow workers and managers. Many complaints about day to day incidents were contained in her voluminous submissions prior to the hearing and during the hearing. It was established that none of the complaints were submitted formally to the Employer. The Worker maintained that the Employer should have investigated even when she had not made specific complaints. I find that, just as an employee has the right to know if allegations are made against her, the Employer has the right to be advised of an employee’s complaints, disputes and dissatisfaction in order to properly investigate them. In this case, the Employer was not on notice of the Worker’s many complaints. Where an employee claims constructive dismissal, the onus is on her to prove that she had no alternative but to resign from her employment. In this case, I find the Worker did not utilise the grievance procedure or make any formal complaints to the Employer. The Employer cannot be found to have acted unreasonably in the circumstances, and I do not find in favour of the Worker. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I do not find in favour of the Worker.
Dated: 14-06-2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Key Words:
Industrial Relations Act 1969. Claim of constructive dismissal. Not upheld. Recommendation not in favour of the Worker. |