Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

School Secretary

Board of Management N.S.

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00063395

09/08/2021

The employee commenced employment as school secretary on 25 August 2020.  She worked 12 hours per week during term time.  Her hourly rate of pay was €16.56.  The employment ended on 11 June 2021.  The employee referred a dispute to the WRC on 19 August 2021.  The dispute concerned the manner of her treatment in her last months of employment which the employee believed was an affront to her dignity at work.

The employer contends that the precise scope of the dispute is unclear but submits that the employee was treated in a polite and professional manner throughout the course of her employment.

The employee asserts that the manner of her treatment in the last months of employment was an affront to her dignity at work.

The employee’s submission refers to issues that arose in May 2018 when she states she was informed of changes the employer intended to make to her hours, days of work and moving to another office.  The change in work pattern was not possible as the employee at that time had family caring responsibilities.  The proposed office move was unsuitable for the employee due to her medical condition.

On return to work in September 2018 the employee’s work location had been changed, without consultation.  The employee was on medically certified sick leave until late November 2018.  She was not paid during that period of sick leave.  Previously she had been paid for a period of sick leave.

These issues were raised with the employer through her union representative. A meeting took place and there was a commitment to foster a better working relationship.  However, this commitment was not implemented.  On her return to work in November 2018 the employee was informed that some of her work, wages, and filing, would now be done by a member of the parent’s council.  Another meeting, including the union representative, took place in January 2019.  The employee placed on record that she was willing to work extra hours to do the work being done by the member of the parent’s council.  The issues were unresolved and further meetings were delayed due to a family bereavement of the employee.  The issues were raised again in September 2019 but were unresolved.  A referral was made to the WRC conciliation service in early 2020, but the employer declined to participate.  Due to the Covid pandemic health and safety restrictions the employee was unable to progress her grievances further until October 2020.

On 19 October 2020 the union wrote to the school stating that the employee would like to discuss the scope for the employee to increase her working hours.  It was also noted that changes the employee’s working environment had been made without consultation.   The then Principal was due to leave in December 2020 and contact details were requested for the Board of Management.  There was no response to this email.  A reminder was sent on 06 November 2020.  An acknowledgement was received the same day and the contact details were emailed on 09 November 2020.  Reminder letters were sent to the Board on 22 November and 11 December 2020.  There was no response to either letter.

The new Principal commenced on 06 January 2021.  The employee decided not to progress the issues until the Principal had time to establish herself. The schools were closed at that time due to Covid health and safety restrictions.  The employee was told she would not be paid for the days the school was closed but following correspondence from the union this matter was resolved and she was paid. 

However, the employee’s desk was moved without consultation and some personal items in her desk drawer were discarded.  A similar issue had arisen in the past.  The union wrote to the Principal about this issue on 17 February and sent a reminder on 19 February 2021.  The email dealt with three issues – the moving of the employee’s desk without consultation, other users of the employee’s work laptop, transfer of duties to other staff.  A reply was received from the Principal on 03 March 2021.  While the letter gave a different view of events to the employee’s it did contain an apology.  It was also stated that the Principal would be happy to meet with the employee to discuss any additional concerns she might have.

The employee had raised a concern in November 2020 about compensation for public holidays.  The employee was of the view that she was not properly compensated for public holidays.  On 05 March 2021 the employee was invited to meet informally with the Chair of the Board of Management and the Principal to discuss the public holiday issue.  She was issued with a statement about her public holiday payments and an amount due to be paid to her.  However, the employee was also informed about potential cost cuts and was ask if she was willing to job-share or reduce her hours.  She was also asked for ideas on cost savings.  The employee was taken aback at being asked for ideas on cost savings as she did not see it as her role to come up with such savings.

The union replied to the Principal on 09 March 2021.  The letter set out the views of the employee about the move of her desk and the disposal of personal food items.  While not sharing the view that the issue of the desk had been resolved or that the food items needed to be disposed of the employee welcomed the apology and the agreement to meet with a view to resolving these matters.

The letter dealt in greater detail with the issue of potential cost cuts and way these had been raised at an informal meeting at which the employee was not represented. There followed a series of meetings over March and April 2021 which ended in the employee being made redundant on 30 April 2021.  The employee was given formal notice of her redundancy five minutes before the end of duty and told to take her belongings and return her keys.  She was placed on a notice period of 6 weeks with immediate effect.  The employee states on her complaint form that she was effectively frogmarched out the door.  Such treatment after almost eleven years of employment was an affront to her dignity and her standing in the local community.

The employee seeks a finding in her favour and an award of significant compensation for the manner of treatment she endured, the effect such had on her health and wellbeing and damage to her standing in the local community.

The employer had a fundamental difficulty in dealing with issues from 2018 involving the former Principal and an alleged change in the employee’s terms, given the passage of time and change of personnel.

Further, the employee seeks to raise and re-ventilate issues which the employer sought to deal with under the relevant grievance procedure. By letter of 08 April 2021 the Principal replied to the union stating that the employee had been provided with a copy of the relevant grievance procedure.  The first stage of the procedure provides that the employee should address the grievance formally in writing to the Principal.  On receipt of any such grievance the Principal would respond in writing within ten school days.

The Principal dealt with the issue of an increase in hours, along with the move of the employee’s work location, her personal food items and had apologised to the employee.  In her letter of 03 March 2021 in reply to the union the Principal stated that in relation to both the desk move and the food items she had communicated openly with the employee and apologised for any actions that may have caused offence, on both occasions she was left with the firm impression that her apology had been accepted and the issues resolved. 

The employee alleged that there was little communication with her.  This is denied. The school was operating remotely for a huge part of 2020 and 2021 due to the Covid pandemic health and safety restrictions.  As a result, email communication was the more prevalent mode of communication amongst staff.  The employer submits that the employee was treated in a polite and professional manner throughout her employment.

The employer denies that duties were stripped away from the employee and that other staff were provided with more favourable treatment.

The employer is unclear about the alleged changes to the employee’s working environment.  However, the employer is aware that there was an office re-shuffle following the introduction of GDPR in 2018.  Several staff members moved office at that time.  The employee resisted the move on the basis she did not want to work in what she described as a confined space.  The former Principal tried to resolve this issue informally, with little success.  As a result, the employee was offered the school’s grievance procedure.

It is denied that the employee was “frogmarched out the door”.  The Principal along with another Board of Management member, thanked the employee for her service and wished her well. The employer maintains that relations remained amicable.

The employer requests that the claim against it under the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act is dismissed.

In conducting my investigation, I have considered all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

The employee referred this dispute to the WRC on 09 August 2021.  On the complaint form it is stated that the employee believes that the manner of her treatment in the last few months was an affront to her dignity at work.  However, the submission deals with issues covering a period from 2018 to 2021.  The complaints revolve around five issues over that period – a request for more working hours, the work location of the employee, lack of consultation, compensation for public holidays and treatment during a redundancy consultation process and termination.

The employee worked 12 hours per week.  She worked Monday, Wednesday and Friday from 10.00 to 14.00.  In May 2018 the implementation of GDPR required certain changes to be made in the school.  Several employees had to change office, including the employee.  The employee contended that the proposed new location was unsuitable for her due to a health condition.  The employee was on sick leave and returned in November 2018 after the employer agreed to desist from making the changes to the workspace.  The Principal has also raised proposed changes to the employee’s hours of work and days of work and these issues remained unresolved at the time she returned to work, but it seems no such changes were implemented.  In my opinion the 2018 issue of work location was resolved at that time.

When the employee returned to work, she was informed that a member of the parent’s council, who had assisted during the employee’s period of sick leave, would stay on working 3 hours per week and would do wages and filing.  This work had previously been done by the employee but due to the requirement for confidentiality the employee’s location was no longer suitable for this work.  This was to be resolved within 8 weeks at which point the duties were to be restored to the employee.  The employee offered to work extra hours to do this work.  The employee believed that as she was the senior member of staff, she should have been offered extra hours before bringing in another employee.

In my opinion the employer had to meet the GDPR requirements and this necessitated changes in office accommodation.  While consultation with employees about such changes to office accommodation is important there are restrictions on the amount of available space.  The employee, due to a medical condition, was accommodated by the proposed change of location not being implemented.  The result was that some work had to be done in a different location.  The issue of the additional hours to do this work remained unresolved and attempts to resolve the issue were delayed due to a family bereavement of the employee and later the Covid pandemic.  This issue was overtaken in 2021 when the employer was faced with a significant cost overspend and had to reduce ancillary staff costs.   Given the financial difficulties facing the employer it was legitimate to seek to reduce costs.  The employee who had worked 3 hours per week was made redundant and another ancillary worker had their hours of work reduced.

During early 2021 the school was closed due to the Covid pandemic health and safety restrictions.  The school reopened on 01 March 2021.  When the employee returned to work her desk had been moved without consultation.  The Principal had removed some food items from the desk which she thought had gone off and could have posed a problem with mice.  As the letter of 03 March 2021 shows the Principal discussed this issue with the employee and apologised in person and in writing.  The Principal also indicated that she was willing to meet with the employee and discuss any additional concerns she may have had.  The union’s replying letter of 09 March 2021, whilst disputing some parts of the account of what took place, clearly states that the employee welcomed the apology and the agreement to meet to resolve matters amicably.  The employee was prepared to move on provided there would be better consultation in the future.  In my opinion the issue of the desk location and the disposal of the personal food was resolved between the employee and the Principal before this dispute was referred to the WRC.

The employee has I note submitted complaints to the WRC about her public holiday entitlements and the termination of her employment.  In those circumstances it is not appropriate for me to express any opinion on those issues in this dispute.

I note that the employee was well regarded by the employer and that there were no performance issues.  Tensions may arise for time to time where change is necessary.  It was clear that the new Principal needed to make changes and the consultation with the employee might have been better.  However, the context is important.  The school was just reopening after the Covid pandemic and understandably communications were more likely by email than face to face.  When the issues were raised with the Principal she apologised for the lack of consultation and took steps to agree the desk location.  In my opinion the Principal, in unusual circumstances, did what she could to resolve the desk issue and unhesitatingly apologised for a lack of consultation.

Having carefully considered the submissions it is my opinion that the issues raised by the employee in this dispute have either been resolved directly between the parties or are the subject of separate employment rights complaints.  In those circumstances I recommend no concession of the employee’s request for an award of compensation to resolve this dispute.

Dispute

Consultation

Work location

Public Holidays