Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Deli Assistant

Convenience Store

Representatives

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 - 00005120

05/09/2025

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/2020 which said instrument designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings pursuant to Section 31 of the Principal Act. The said remote hearing was set up and hosted by an appointed member of the WRC administrative staff. I am satisfied that no party was prejudiced by having this hearing conducted remotely.  I am also satisfied that I was in a position to fully exercise my function, and I made all relevant inquiries in the usual way.

The hearing was not conducted in public as it concerned a dispute brought under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969. Industrial Relations disputes are primarily heard on the basis of factual submissions provided by the respective parties. Relevant parties might be invited to give an oral recollection of events, facts and matters within their knowledge. Testimony may be subject to rebuttal by witnesses or other relevant contradicting evidence provided by the other side. A recommendation arising from an IR hearing will be anonymised.

The specific details of the dispute are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 5th of September 2025.

The Complainant was not represented and made her own case. The Complainant had set out her issue in her workplace relations complaint form as follows:

The atmosphere in this shop, the deli in particular has always been negative. I have message proof and my colleagues can verify that I have requested to be put onto the floor instead of the deli as the atmosphere in the deli is so negative and belittling.

About a month before this issue, I noticed 2 girls in particular as well as myself were getting a particularly hard time by our 'Manager', When I was told that we had a new manager, J, I went to her requesting that she keep an eye on these 2 girls as they had been very upset about what B was saying to them and were incredibly upset before every shift that they knew they had on with B.

After my conversation with J she went straight to SH. This was on Wednesday 30th July 2025. His daughter AH came to the deli to get me and took me into his office to have a chat with the 2 of them. Nobody else was present. When I sat down, SH told me it appears I am 'bitching'. He proceeded to tell me 'I have B's back on this'. But then also wanted to know why I hadn't come to him first hand. It was because everyone knows of SH and B's friendly relationship. Also, AH and B are best friends. As a result of this, nobody tells them.

I had a panic attack from the moment he told me he had B's back as he was speaking at me in a raised voice. Every third thing to come out of his mouth was 'I'm the boss here'. I had to request tissues and water and quite obviously and visibly could not breath or speak, let alone stand up for myself. One of the supervisors knocked on the door to the office and got told to 'come back in a while', I believe this was because they knew what they were doing violated so many of my rights and their responsibilities.

I felt particularly uncomfortable when he told me he watches the cameras and as a result of that knows B isn't doing anything wrong. This was disgusting to find out, he watches us on the cameras. But also, the Cameras have no sound...

All I got to say was that B was 'belittling' to myself and the other girls, to which he asked me if I even knew the meaning of belittling in a very condescending tone….

SH threatened my job when he ended the conversation with I'm making cuts in 6 weeks time and you better thread carefully.

I was given 30 minutes to 'gather myself back up' before having to go work with B for another 2 hours.

The Complainant gave an oral account of this meeting that did not hugely deviate from her written narrative.

I was provided with supplemental documentary evidence in support of the Complainant’s case. No objection was raised to any of the materials relied upon by the Complainant in making his case. The evidence adduced by the Complainant was challenged as appropriate by the Respondent witness.

The Complainant takes issue with how the Employer purported to deal with a bullying and harassment complaint or Grievance raised by her.

Where it also became necessary, I explained how the Adjudication process operated with particular emphasis on the burden of proof which had to be attained by the Complainant in the first instance.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute. 

The Respondent entity was represented by a witness in the person of the General Manager/Owner Mr SH. The Respondent was further represented by a HR professional Mr. JF.. No objection was raised in connection with any of the documentary evidence relied upon by the Respondent in the course of making its case.

The Respondent seemingly rejects that the Complainant was entitled to raise an issue and stands over the way in which it was handled.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. I have also carefully considered the evidence adduced by both parties in the course of this hearing. I am confining myself to dealing with the events which unfolded on the 31st of July 2025. I now know that the Complainant has since tendered her resignation, and I consider that matter to be outside the scope of what I ought to consider.

The Complainant worked with the Respondent convenience store for well over a year without issue. I understand that the work was quasi seasonal in that the Complainant only worked one day a week during the college term but worked more hours when there was demand. The Complainant started her employment in the Deli area and that is where she was engaged for most of her employment. It is clear that there was friction between the complainant and her immediate Line Manger B who ran the Deli. The Complainant gave evidence that she was constantly being picked on and required to do more than her share of the tasks. I cannot verify if this was the case but can certainly concede that the Complainant felt aggrieved by the way she was being handled. A workplace investigation was never conducted.

The Complainant agreed that she did not approach the owners of the store. Her sense was that B was too well in there. Ultimately in July of 2025 the Complainant went to a recently recruited Manager J and flagged that there were issues with herself and B and that she was speaking on behalf of a number of people behind the deli counter. J seemed responsive and said that she would monitor the situation. J also said that she wanted the Complainant to stay as she valued her as an employee. The Complainant did not ask for this matter to be converted into an informal or formal matter and gave evidence that she was happy that J was watching out for her and ultimately might even move her to the Bakery area from the Deli area.

The Complainant was therefore surprised when two members of the family who owned the shop called her into a meeting later that day.

In the interim period it seems that J had raised the issue with SH the owner. This was done without the consent of the Complainant who had never had the confidence to address this matter with SH.

It seems that SH is not a man given to thoughtful reflection and went straight for the scorched-earth approach.

In reverse order SH had gone straight to B and put her in the impossible situation of having the defend her management style without any idea of what the issues were. Not unreasonably, B lashed back at the Complainant, saying that the Complainant was unmanageable or was unresponsive to B’s management style.  It was only then that SH called the Complainant in to a meeting. I am satisfied that the sole purpose of this meeting which was to put B’s defence to the Complainant and put the Complainant in her place.

Everybody agrees that the Complainant was so distraught that she was unable to articulate her issues with any clarity. In fact, the Complainant had to wait a full 30 minutes after this meeting before returning to her workstation.

Mr SH is running a business with up to 50 pert-time and full-time staff. He concedes that neither he nor his daughter (who also attended the meeting) have any HR training. He has, he says, access to HR services from the franchisor upon which his business is modelled. He did not see that he needed it on this occasion. I must disagree with him in this regard.

SH should never have gotten involved in the way that he did. In the first instance when J approached him, he should have sent J back to confirm whether the Complainant wanted to raise a formal or informal complaint. J was the party the Complainant trusted, and this fact alone appears to have annoyed SH. He at no stage seemed to understand that this was the Complainant’s grievance to raise as and when she saw fit.  SH simply never recognised this entitlement.

I cannot over express how unfair it was to call the Complainant (a college student) into a meeting without any support in the form of a friend or colleague and then to be harangued into detailing her issues. This was never intended to be a part of some formal investigative process as is evident from the fact that not one single note was taken. Instead, the Complainant was brought in and given a dressing down for having the temerity to be unhappy with her line Manager. It is not wholly surprising therefore that the Complainant dissolved into tears.

I cannot fully know what was said in the meeting – as no-one took a written note. However, I do have the almost contemporaneous WhatsApp messages sent by the Complainant to her friend which appear to line up with the Complainant’s version of events. 

In his evidence before me SH stated:

I didn’t think there was a whole lot in it. I believe that B was just doing her job

The point here is, of course, that SH had his mind made up before that meeting had even ended.

Whilst I fully accept that the Complainant may not ever have been bullied or mis-managed by B - as these issues were never fully and appropriately investigated – I am satisfied that she was let down by her Employer SH in his handling of the situation. This has ultimately fractured the trust required to sustain this and any employment relationship.