ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00004015
Parties:
| Worker | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A worker | A Dry Cleaners |
Representatives | None | None |
Dispute:
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00006633-002 | 25 August 2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 22 June 2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Procedure:
In accordance with section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969,following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.
Summary of the Worker’s Case:
The worker raises how she was treated working at the respondent dry cleaners, in particular by the operations director. She said that she and her colleague were only allowed on the counter when the operations director was down the pub. She said that he would also stop them from having lunch. Their roles had been reduced following the transfer of undertaking as tasks were removed from them. They only emptied washing machines and cleaned the premises. They served customers when the operations director was not available. The worker said that she was undermined on a daily basis, where she was given tasks to do and shouted at for not getting them done. The operations director threatened to bring in foreign workers. They complained all the time.
The operations director made inappropriate comments regarding the Graham Dwyer trial and would mimic this murder. He referred to the respondent’s first aid kit as his “rape kit”. He made other references to his sex life and preferences. The worker said the operations director referred to a colleague as “chubby cheeks” and slagged her for her size. The operations director would also be in a state of undress while in her company and he enjoyed make people embarrassed. He would also make disparaging comments about clients, in particular a large woman.
The worker outlined that on the 24th December 2014, the company director laughed as she had to clean excrement from a garment which leaked from an adult nappy. On the 13th April 2014, the worker said that she had been left alone on this busy day. The operations director returned and after seeing a pair of trousers, he became angry and put his face into hers, saying that it was a “sh*t job.”
The worker said that she suffered from work-related stress and had to leave the role. She resigned in April 2015 and spoke to the company director about why she was leaving. The company director, however, told different reasons to the operations director. Her last week in work was the week before the 6th May 2015 and she took some annual leave in her last week. She referred to the text messages of the 14th April 2015. She commented on the email of the 15th May 2015 and said that the company director had not replied to the issues raised regarding the operations director. She was not supplied with the grievance procedure referred to by the company director. She said that she wanted the operations director to realise that he could not treat people this way. She had anxiety attacks because of his behaviour.
The worker said that she texted the operations director in May 2015 to ask for her job back and also emailed the company director, who did not reply to her. The operations director replied that she should hold tight and he would give her shifts. On the 4th June 2015, the operations director offered her a new role. She replied to meet up and was concerned that her mother was still working there. The operations director later replied that he forgot to text her back. They never met. The worker commented that her text of the 18th August 2015 related to a contract in a named secondary school as her new employer had turned this down. The operations director said that he would chase this up and she said she would follow-up on a possible new job. There were also texts between them when the worker’s new employment was going into liquidation. The worker said that she did not want to work at the respondent and she was texting the operations director with opportunities in order to help her mother. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The company director outlined that he had replied to the substance of this case in his submissions in respect of ADJ 4912. The worker left the respondent to work in another dry cleaners and continued to work there until the closure of that business. He referred to the worker’s emails where she asked for her job back. These messages went on for four months after the end of her employment and many were made to the operations director. The worker had begged for her job back. She met with the operations director on her own and this proves that she is a liar. In reply to the worker, the respondent outlined that the operations director and worker had again met after the meeting on the 4th June 2015. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The worker worked at the respondent dry cleaners from the 20th April 2005 to the 7th May 2015, when she resigned. There was sharp divergence over what happened in the dry cleaners, in particular with regard to interactions with a senior manager. On balance, I find the worker’s account to be consistent and plausible. Her email of the 15th May 2015 is striking. She states “As you know I regrettably handed in my notice last week as I felt I couldn’t go on working in [the respondent trading name] under the conditions we spoke about on many occasion… I would not hesitate to return to [the respondent] if all issues were resolved.” While the worker sought her job back and also engaged with the respondent by text message, this does not undermine the credibility of her complaint.
This is an Industrial Relations referral and in this context, I recommend redress of €750 for the effects of harassment in the workplace. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
CA-00006633-002 I recommend that the respondent pay the complainant redress of €750 for the effects of harassment in the workplace. |
Dated: 6thJune, 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Key Words:
Industrial Relations Act / bullying and harassment |