Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Cashier

Casino

Representatives

Self-Represented

Mr. William Wall Peninsula Business Service (Ireland) Limited

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

IR - SC - 00001336

26/04/2023

The Worker commenced employment with the Employer on 10th September 2018. The Worker’s hours were variable during his employment, however it is common case that he received a payment of €10.10 for each hour worked. The Worker remains an employee of the Respondent, albeit subject to an extended period of suspension.

On 26th April 2023, the Worker referred the present dispute to the Commission. By submission received thereafter, he alleged that the Employer had placed him on a lengthy, unwarranted suspension and did not engage with any formal process in relation to a complaint raised against him. In denying this allegation, the Employer submitted that a serious allegation had been raised against the Worker and that their ability to investigate the same was hampered by a parallel Garda investigation.

A hearing in relation to this matter was convened for, and finalised on, 27th November 2023. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced by either side during the hearing.  

The Worker submitted that he commenced employment with the Employer as a cashier in one of their casinos.

On 27th August 2022, the Worker was informed that one of the customers of the Employer had raised an allegation of sexual harassment against him. Shortly thereafter, on 1st September 2022, the Managing Director of the Employer contacted the Worker by phone. During this conversation, the Managing Director of the Employer advised that the customer in question had gone to the police in respect of the complaint, and that the Worker would have to be placed on suspension. Approximately one week later, the Worker met with the Managing Director in person. During this conversation, the Managing Director advised that the Worker would be paid whilst on suspension and that he intended on speaking with the relevant Garda in relation to the matter.

Naturally, this sequence of events caused the Worker a great deal of stress and anxiety. In the absence of any further response from the Managing Director, the Worker attended the Garda station himself on 22nd October 2022 to determine the status of the investigation. At this point, the Worker was informed that no such investigation was underway. Following the receipt of this information, the Worker attempted to speak with the Managing Director, however his calls went unanswered. On 7th November 2022, the Worker wrote to the Employer requesting that the nature of the allegation against him be outlined and that the relevant disciplinary procedure be produced. Following a series of unanswered emails seeking an update in relation to these matters, the Worker referred the present dispute to the Commission.

By submission, the Worker submitted that he had been treated appallingly by the Respondent. In this regard, the Worker submitted that the Employer suspended him without setting out the nature of the allegation against him and without progressing any form of investigation. The Worker further submitted that the Employer kept the Worker on paid suspension for an extraordinary period of time, leaving him in a form of limbo in respect of his ongoing employment.

In August of 2022, the Managing Director of the Employer became aware of a complaint issued by a customer of the casino. In this regard, the customer alleged that the Worker sent her a highly inappropriate video message. While the Managing Director asked for a statement in this regard, the customer in question advised that she intended to go to the Gardaí. Following taking some advice on the matter, the Managing Director placed the Worker on a period of suspension whilst the Gardaí investigated the matter.

Regarding the length of the suspension, the Managing Director submitted that this occurred as he did not receive positive confirmation from the Gardaí that the matter was no longer being investigated. Thereafter, the Employer submitted that they sought to mediate with the Worker regarding these matters, however the same did not serve to resolve the issues. Following the same, given that the present dispute had been referred to the Commission, no further action was taken until the same were called for hearing.

In closing, the Employer submitted that the Worker was suspended on foot of a serious allegation raised by a customer of the premises. They submitted that the delay in investigating the same arose by virtue of the parallel investigation apparently being undertaken by the Gardaí.

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

Regarding the present dispute, it is apparent that the Worker was placed on suspension in August of 2022 and, apparently, remained on said suspension until the date of the hearing, over one year later. Clearly a number of issues arise in relation to this state of affairs. Regarding the initial suspension, the Worker was not provided with the particulars of the complaint raised against him. In circumstances whereby the complaint was of an extremely serious nature, the Respondent’s failure in this regard caused the Worker a significant amount of unnecessary stress and worry. In addition to the same, while the Employer was informed the customer in question interned to bring the matter to the attention of the Garda, he never received any positive confirmation of the same, nor is it apparent that he made any material attempts to confirm the position regarding the ongoing investigation. Regarding the extraordinary duration of the Worker ’s suspension, the same cannot be explained by a parallel investigation, particularly in circumstances whereby the Worker confirmed that no such investigation was underway.

Having regard to the foregoing, I recommend in favour of the Worker. Regarding redress, it is noted that the Worker’s employment status remained unclear at the hearing in question. In this respect I recommend that the parties meet within two weeks of the date below to discuss these matters and facilitate the Worker ’s return to work, should he wish for the same. In addition to the foregoing, I recommend that given the length of time that has elapsed since the alleged misconduct, no further disciplinary sanction be considered against the Worker. Finally, given the breadth of the procedural deficiencies on the part of the Respondent, I recommend that the Complainant received a payment of €3,000 in compensation.

Suspension, Delay, Parallel Investigation