Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Supermarket Employee

A Supermarket

Representatives

  Self Represented

The HR Suite

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 - 00003343

29/10/2024

The Worker had a dispute regarding her lay off for a period in 2024  not being fair.

The  Worker has been employed as a Shop Assistant since 24/8/2025.

The Worker initially submitted as part of her dispute that her Manager repeatedly shouted when she asks a question when there is no none else around and then lies about it however this was not pursued at the Hearing.

The Worker also stated (her main case) was her Manager unfairly put her on temporary lay off for 2 months because she refused to take a cut in hours without having it in writing.

The Worker stated that when she followed the grievance procedures and requested a meeting with the Director twice he refused both times to meet to discuss the issues.

The Worker stated her normal hours were around 30 per week and they were reduced by 10 hours and she had a 2 month lay off.  She stated she felt she was unfairly selected for lay off and only got 45 minutes notice.

She advised in June 2024 she had no work for two months.

She stated part time workers were at work while she was on lay off.

The Worker stated she was at a loss of 2500 Euros due to being laid off.

The Employer advised that the Owner is not medically fit to either engage with the WRC or the Worker to attempt to resolve this dispute.

The Representative advised the business is likely to be sold in the very near future.

The Worker was offered the Grievance Procedure on several occasions by the Owners wife and was given the opportunity to make contact  directly or with The HR Suite had she not felt comfortable disclosing or discussing the Grievance Complaint with the Owners wife.

The Employer remains open to resolving this matter through the appropriate internal procedures.

 The Employer stated that they had no option but to reduce hours of work and place employees on temporary lay-off due to a down-turn in business as an essential cost saving method  and that they used the last in first out method for selection.

The Worker was offered to relocate to another area inside the shop instead of lay off and declined the offer.

In the Employer submission they confirmed that she is now aware that the process followed was not correct and that all employees should have received notification regarding temporary lay-offs and periods of short time.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.  This was a difficult dispute to investigate as the primary Director of the Employer, due to a very unfortunate medical situation, could not attend the Hearing or contribute to the submissions. His wife had taken over the running of the business and was only catching up fully with all historical issues. It was obvious both parties wished to resolve the matter and the Employer did admit to not following the correct procedure for lay off.  The detail of this was unable to be fully explored at the Hearing. Given the medical situation of the Director and the possible imminent sale of the business I recommend the Employer pay the Worker 1500 Euros to resolve this dispute.

I recommend in favour of the Worker and that the employer pay her a sum of 1500 Euros for breach of her employment rights to resolve this dispute.

Trade dispute