Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Employee

An Employer

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Section 13 Industrial Relations Act 1969

CA 00065045

29/07/2024

On 5th July 2024 the worker notified his assistant manager about a delay in his salary payment. The worker received a response stating that because it was not an actual payday that he could not address the issue until July 6th, which was the official payday. The Complainant waited until 8th July but by that date he still had not received his payment. His assistant manager then escalated the issue and sent an email to corporate head office explaining that the worker had not been paid. By 9th July he still had not received the payment, so he sent an email himself seeking to rectify the issue.   Following on from that, the owner called his assistant manager to confirm that the payment would be made that afternoon. It was paid that afternoon but the Complainant was annoyed  because he had been paid four days after all of his colleagues. Following this complaint, the Respondent’s behaviour towards him changed. 

He felt he was subjected to continuous personal harassment and intimidation. Prior to raising the issue in relation to his pay he was never asked for a written log of his daily tasks however after the complaint a demand was made of him to provide written logs on a daily basis setting out all of his tasks. The Respondent began to criticise him in relation to the tasks he was performing. That was a change in comparison to the positive comments he got about his work in the week's prior to the pay issue. 

On two occasions the Complainant was requested to attend meetings in relation to his performance, but he was given no prior notice of these meetings and was not given an opportunity to bring a witness to support his defence. Those meetings were on the 25th and 26th of July. During the meetings he was accused of completely unsubstantiated misconduct allegations. On the 26th he was summons to the meeting without prior notice and found himself sitting with three company representatives alone with no representative himself. That made him feel intimidated and ambushed. The Complainant was issued with a written warning and was forced to sign it. He was told that if he did not sign it, they would demand his notice or they would fire him.

On the 29th of July the Complainant was forced to resign his position and was told if he didn't resign, he would be fired.  That situation arose after he had expressed his dissatisfaction with the formal warning he had received on the 26th.

The Complainant is of the opinion that the way they Respondent treated him was a violation of his rights to a fair procedure and due process.

The Complainant secured new employment on 23rd September 2024.

The Complainant stated that he would like compensation, the warning removed from his file and acknowledgement that he was forced to resign from his position.

Ms. A

This case arises out of a text message sent on the 24th July from N, who is the Complainant’s girlfriend. It all started after an issue with a slippery floor. In that message she stated “ A.., is it possible that you are targeting S just because of the email he sent about not getting paid? It’s quiet a coincidence that you never mentioned anything before and since he complained about not being paid for four days you’ve been bothering him. He is only there to help. S asked me to send this.”  The meeting on the 25th July was a meeting in relation to the content of the text message. It seemed that the Complainant took the email sent about the floor being slippery personally. It wasn’t personal.  He was very disrespectful during the meeting and his body language was disrespectful. All of this was addressed in the meeting of the 25th July. He wouldn’t engage so the meeting was not productive. After the meeting he received a warning.  The warning was only in relation to his attitude at the meeting. Nothing else. That was on the 26th July. He refused to sign the warning. He was told either way, sign or don’t sign the warning was going on his file. He resigned on the 29th.  He was put on garden leave for his notice period.  Nobody forced him to resigned. He himself said that he felt it might be better for him if he did resign. It was his choice.

The Respondent concedes that he was not informed that he could bring a representative to the meeting on the 25th. However, it was not a disciplinary meeting or anything like that.

The Complainant connected everything that was going on in work to the non-payment of his wages. The Respondent accepts that the payment was late, but it was paid.  

Nobody was targeting him. Nobody was harassing him.

The Complainant gave evidence stating that he believed he was mistreated by the Respondent after he sent an email regarding the non-payment of his wages. The Respondent acknowledged that the wages were indeed paid late, but explained that once the issue was identified, payment was made immediately.

Following the email about the wages, the Complainant claimed he observed a change in the Respondent’s attitude towards him. As an example, he referred to an email concerning a slippery floor. This email was sent to the general email address of the Respondent and was directed to N, the manager. It was not addressed to the Complainant personally. The content of the email was:

Dear N, Thank you for your email. I am aware that when the floor is wet it is slippery, however, as far as I remember the floor is slippery even when it is dry (between the staff room and office), so please just double-check as this is a hazard.

In a subsequent email, the author did request that the Complainant check the floor. It is difficult to comprehend how the Complainant could interpret this message as a personal attack or criticism. The floor was indeed slippery, and the author merely requested it be checked due to the potential liability risk for the Respondent.

The Complainant then asked his girlfriend, who is also the manager, to send a message to A alleging that he was being targeted. It was this message that led to a meeting being convened on the 25th. The Respondent acknowledges that the Complainant was not given an opportunity to have a representative at the meeting. However, the meeting was neither disciplinary nor investigatory in nature; it was simply convened to discuss the contents of the message sent the previous day.

The warning letter issued to the Complainant following that meeting was in relation to his disrespectful and unhelpful conduct during the meeting—nothing more. The Complainant did not challenge the Respondent’s account of what occurred and did not appeal the warning.

Subsequently, the Complainant made the decision to resign. There is no evidence—documentary or otherwise—that supports the conclusion that he was forced to do so. I therefore find that his resignation was entirely voluntary.

In all the circumstances, I find no breach of procedure and no evidence to suggest that the Complainant was targeted or treated unfairly. Accordingly, I make no recommendations.

For the reasons set out above, I am declining to make any recommendations in this matter.