Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Barista

A Cafe

Representatives

Grace O’Brien

Annalee Brazel Peninsula Business Services 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 - 00003633

08/01/2025

The Worker was employed by the Employer as a barista/front-of-house assistant from September 2022. Her monthly salary, based on a 36-hr week, was €1972.80 gross: net €1785.42.  The Worker claims that after returning from annual leave on 27 December 2024, she was met with a hostile atmosphere, ignored, or criticised, and on 3 January 2025 was accused of misconduct in a meeting held without prior notice or representation. She was told she was no longer welcome in the branch where she worked and was moved to another branch. She alleges exclusion from communications, unwelcome physical contact on 7 January 2025, and the presentation of false meeting notes. She resigned shortly afterwards, citing bullying and intimidation.

The Employer denies bullying, stating that the meetings were part of a fact-finding process into alleged unauthorised discounts and free items, and that the transfer was a legitimate operational decision. It maintains that internal procedures were available but not used.

On 27 December 2024 the Worker returned from a ten-day holiday to what she described as a hostile atmosphere in the workplace. The Employer privately criticised the level of Christmas sales and referred to “reduced benefits.” In the days that followed, the Worker and her colleagues were, according to her account, either ignored or addressed in an unfriendly manner despite her requests that a team meeting be held to clarify matters.

On 3 January 2025 the Worker was required, without prior notification, to remain after her shift for a meeting with the Employer and the manager. At this meeting she was accused of misconduct  including losing the business money, insufficient Christmas sales, being “too friendly” with customers, undercharging, giving away free items, accepting gifts from customers, giving excessive loyalty card stamps, and permitting “too many tips.” The Worker was told that she was no longer welcome at the branch where she worked but that she would be moved to another branch instead, and that she would be “watched closely.”

On 7 January 2025, the Worker began her first shift at the Washington Street branch. She stated that the Employer then instructed her to stop her tasks and accompany her for a private discussion. According to the Worker, she refused, explaining that after the previous meeting she no longer felt comfortable engaging alone, and that she would only do so in writing or on neutral ground with an agreed witness present.

The Worker claims that while she was steaming milk, the Employer pulled her arm down in front of the accountant, a colleague, and customers. She stated that she objected to this physical contact, telling the Employer not to touch her, and repeating that she would not participate in such a meeting. The Worker further claims that the Employer told her she could not refuse because she was the boss and threatened to report her to the Garda. According to the Worker, the accountant then warned her that there would be serious consequences if she did not comply and that a solicitor could be involved. She added that an extract from the staff handbook was read to her, though she was too upset and anxious to absorb its contents.

The Worker described the incident as humiliating and frightening, stating that she felt intimidated, bullied, and physically threatened in front of colleagues and customers.

The Employer stated that the Worker was employed as a barista and front-of-house assistant and that her duties and obligations were set out clearly in her contract of employment and the Employee Handbook. The Employer claims that concerns arose in late December 2024 regarding breaches of those obligations, including what it categorises as “staff theft.” This term, as defined in the handbook, includes charging customers less than the listed price, giving away food or drink without payment, providing unauthorised discounts, or permitting staff or customers to receive items for free.

The Employer stated that on 27 December 2024 the Worker was informally reminded of the need to comply with her contractual obligations following observations that she was undercharging and giving away items without authorisation. The Employer claims that this led to a fact-finding meeting on 3 January 2025, which it describes as an initial investigation rather than a disciplinary hearing. According to the Employer, the Worker was not alone at this meeting, as another employee was present as a witness. The Employer further stated that during this meeting the Worker admitted that she had on occasion charged customers less than the listed price, sold products at reduced prices near the end of their shelf life, and given away leftover items for free.

The Employer maintains that the decision to transfer the Worker from one branch to was not a punishment, but a temporary step taken after the 3 January meeting, with the Worker’s agreement, while the matter was being investigated further. It claims that the Worker was content to accept this move at the time.

The Employer also referred to events of 7 January 2025. It stated that the purpose of attending the Washington Street shop on that day, together with the company accountant, was to hold a short meeting with the Worker as part of the ongoing fact-finding process. The Employer claims that another colleague offered to act as a witness, but that the Worker refused to attend the meeting. The Employer further stated that the Worker was advised it was in her best interests to attend, and that the accountant referred her to the relevant provisions of the Employee Handbook. The Employer denies that bullying or intimidation occurred on this occasion. The Employer denies that she grabbed the Worker by the arm.

Overall, the Employer maintains that its actions were part of a legitimate and appropriate process to investigate concerns about staff theft and related matters. It denies that there was any bullying, harassment, or intimidation. The Employer claims that robust grievance and disciplinary procedures were always available to the Worker.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. I am satisfied that the Employer failed to adhere to fair procedures in its dealings with the Worker in late December 2024 and early January 2025.

The Worker was required to attend meetings on 3 January and 7 January 2025 without advance notice of the issues to be discussed, without the opportunity to prepare, and without being offered representation or accompaniment by a colleague or other appropriate person. The Employer named a work colleague that was present at the 3 January meeting, but it transpired that this was a member of the management team. These meetings were initiated by management in circumstances where serious allegations of misconduct were made. The Worker was, in effect, ambushed with accusations and denied the safeguards which are fundamental to a fair investigation process.

I am further satisfied that the decision to transfer the Worker from the branch where she was established and had built up working relationships to another location amounted to a disciplinary sanction. This was imposed without any proper or impartial investigation, without affording the Worker an opportunity to respond in a structured process, and without compliance with the Employer’s own disciplinary procedures or the principles of natural justice.

Based on the oral testimony given at the hearing, I prefer the Worker’s account of what transpired, particularly in relation to the events of 7 January 2025. I am satisfied that the Employer’s actions, taken as a whole and over a period, constituted unfair treatment. The combination of repeated confrontations without notice and the imposition of a punitive transfer created an unsavoury and undermining work environment for the Worker.

The Worker’s resignation shortly afterwards, although not forming the subject matter of a dismissal claim in these proceedings, is a relevant consequence of the treatment she received and supports my finding that the environment had become untenable for her.

Considering these findings, I uphold the Worker’s claim.

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations 1969.