Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

 A Cleaning Contractor

Representatives

N/A

 HR Ireland

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 - 00002184

02/02/2024

The dispute concerns the Worker’s claim that she had no option but to cease her employment which assertion is denied by the Employer.

The Worker stated that she was employed between 1/10/2022 and 31/1/2024. The Worker stated that she mostly worked 12 hours/week – i.e. 6 hours on a Saturday and 6 on a Sunday. The Worker stated she was a General Cleaner working in a large store. The Worker outlined her dealings with her Supervisor in relation to her hours and that her hours were substantially reduced to 3/week in 2023, that she received a new contract in 2023 to reflect the reduced hours and that her hours never fell below the contracted hours.

The Worker outlined complaints about her work made by the new Supervisor which included her receiving WhatsApp messages regarding her work standards. The Worker stated that she was accused by the Supervisor via WhatsApp of not completing work tasks, that pictures purporting to show tasks not completed were sent to her and that on occasions she was communicated with outside of work hours including during the night – e.g. at 4:29am in relation to bin bags. Contrary to what the Supervisor was saying the Worker maintained that her work was always up to standard.

The Worker stated that when she checked the roster on 27 January 2024, she realised she had not been allocated any hours of work for the following week. The Worker stated that she contacted the Supervisor on 30 January 2024 via WhatsApp enquiring about the loss of hours and that he informed her he could no longer give her hours due to an excessive number of complaints about her in the workplace. The Worker stated that she considered she was effectively dismissed as a result of this. The Worker stated that when she questioned the reasons for her dismissal, the Supervisor offered her two hours training. When she informed the Supervisor that her contract provided for three hours normal attendance, the Supervisor then offered her three hours work with no mention of any training.

The Worker stated that she was very upset by this exchange of texts and that she discussed the situation with her parents. Thereafter, she emailed her notice of resignation on 31/1/2024 wherein she stated:

“I wish to inform you that I intend to cease my employment…..with immediate effect as I cannot work under the conditions imposed by my immediate supervisor”

It is the position of the Worker that she was constructively dismissed and treated most unfairly.

The Employer stated the Worker never raised any complaint or issue with either of the Area Managers who would have been in the workplace on a regular basis nor did she initiate the normal workplace Grievance Procedure – even when she was invited to do so on 15/2/2024 – ie after submitting her complaint to the WRC. The Employer stated that whilst there were some ongoing issues raised by her Supervisor this was by way of performance management. The Employer stated  it did not condone communicating with employees outside of work time.

It is the position of the Employer that the Worker raised no issues or complaints whilst in their employ including the matters now before the WRC. Accordingly, the Employer stated it did not have the opportunity to address or seek to rectify any such matters.

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 provides that ".... Where a trade dispute (other than a dispute connected with rates of pay of, hours or times of work of, or annual holidays of, a body of workers) exists or is apprehended….., a party to the dispute may refer it to a rights commissioner [ie Adjudication Officer]".  

In conducting my investigation into this dispute, I have taken into account all relevant submissions, documentation and information provided by the parties and have come to the following conclusions:

·       I am satisfied the Employer had a workplace Grievance Procedure in place to facilitate the airing of complaints which was not utilised by the Worker – either prior to her resignation on 31/1/2024 or afterwards when she was invited by text of 15/2/2024 to set out her complaints/issues. Reference to the Grievance Procedure was made in the employment contract which was effective from 29/4/2023 wherein it was stated “If you have any grievance which you consider to be genuine in respect of any aspect of your employment you have a right to a hearing by your immediate supervisor or other management as circumstances warrant. If you are unhappy with the outcome of the hearing you may appeal to a more senior manager….”.  In addition, I note the Employee Handbook stated that a grievance was “any event, condition, rule, which [a Worker] believe violates [their] civil rights, treats [them] unfairly, or causes [them] any degree of unpleasantness or unhappiness on the job”. The  Employee Handbook also set out the stages of the Grievance Procedure;

·       In terms of the Worker's assertion that her complaint falls under constructive dismissal as she had no choice but to cease her employment, I am satisfied there are no grounds which would justify me departing from the standard legal principles applicable to establishing a case of constructive dismissal. In this regard, in endeavouring to demonstrate that an Employer has acted so unreasonably such as to warrant a Worker’s resignation, the Worker is under the burden of establishing that they have conducted themselves reasonably in terms of affording the Employer the opportunity to address the issue(s) which ultimately led to the resignation. It is well established that it is reasonable and expected that a Worker will firstly have pursued and exhausted the procedures set out at workplace level to address their complaints/grievances. I am satisfied the Worker in this dispute did not do this and in the alternative, for her own legitimate reasons, she chose to resign as per her email to the Employer of 31/1/2024 – which course of action she was clearly entitled to take;

·       In the course of this WRC hearing, the Worker outlined her complaints about the reduction of her hours, about the criticism of her work and about the manner and timing of communication with her by her Supervisor. I have no reason to doubt the bona fides of the Worker in this regard and particularly in relation to WhatsApp messages apparently sent out of hours – which was clearly not appropriate or acceptable. However, the difficulty for the Worker is that she did not raise her pursue these complaints at workplace level. In the circumstances and by the same token, I have no reason to doubt that the Employer would not have taken appropriate action in accordance with its policies and addressed and/or remedied matters if necessary.

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute. In light of my conclusions I recommend the Employer review its policies – particularly as regards the management of performance in the workplace and workplace communications to include clarity on the appropriate timing of communications with workers. If necessary, this may involve re-training or upskilling of its staff.

Constructive Dismissal