ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00007146
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Retail Assistant | A Retail Store |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00009709-001 | 14/02/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 27/09/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The Complainant contends that she was unfairly dismissed when she could not work the hours the employer required. The Respondent disputes that dismissal occurred, and contends that the Complainant voluntarily resigned her position. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant worked a 20 hour week until September 2016 when she secured a place on a training course for make up artists. She intended resigning from her position with the Respondent then, but the Manager told her she could work a 10 hour week. This facilitated her to attend her course on 4 days, and work the long shift on Saturdays in the Respondent’s employment. In January 2017, the Complainant was called to a meeting by management and effectively told that she must work her contracted hours (20-25). As the mother of young children, the Complainant could not physically work any more hours and be away from domestic responsibilities. She explained this to management but she was told she had to work at least 20 hours. It is argued that the Complainant was therefore effectively unfairly dismissed from her employment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Complainant commenced employment on 26th September 2015 as a Customer Assistant on a 20-25 hour contract. In September 2016 she was allowed to temporarily adjust her hours so that she could work one day a week. This was in order to assist her in taking up an education course. On 21 January 2017 the Respondent met with the Complainant to notify her that the needs of the business had changed and that she would be required to work her contracted hours. She was given notice of this change and she said she would have to think about it. She later texted the HR Manager to advise the company that she was unable to do any more hours than the ten she was working on Saturdays. The HR Manager met with her on two occasions and told her that business needs required that everyone had to work their contracted hours. She was also told that it was appreciated that she needed to re-arrange her plans for family life before this was implemented. However the Complainant resigned her position and finished her employment on 30th January 2017. It is argued that the Complainant was not dismissed but she chose to leave as she could not fulfil her contract. Other arguments and case law was submitted regarding constructive dismissal. |
Findings and Conclusions:
There was no complaint regarding constructive dismissal. The Complainant contends that in a situation where she could not work any more than 10 hours per week, the Respondent effectively ended her employment. I note there was no written resignation, and I conclude that the Complainant did not resign her employment, voluntarily or otherwise. I note the minutes of the two meetings held with the Complainant where she clearly asked if she could remain working a one day week and the Human Resources Manager clearly stated that while she would like to accommodate the Complainant “business needs” dictated that everyone had to work their contracted hours. These ‘business needs’ were never elaborated upon, and while it appears the Complainant was a good employee, the Respondent did not allow her to continue the arrangements which had been agreed some months before. When the Complainant advised that she could not do more hours, she was told if she could not work her contract she would finish up a week from then. In considering the evidence in this case, I find that the Complainant was advised that she was required to work her contracted hours of 20-25 hours per week, and when she was not able to do this, her employment was terminated. There was no disciplinary process invoked, save that of two ‘investigation meetings’. In the circumstances I find that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed from her employment. I consider that compensation is the appropriate remedy as re-instatement or re-engagement would not be suitable in light of a potential re-occurring of the difficulties caused. I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €3,200 compensation |
Decision:
In accordance with Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 (as amended) I find the complaint of unfair dismissal to be well founded and I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €3,200.
Dated: 16 November 2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham