Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Glass Cutter

A Glass Cutting Business

Representatives

Appeared In Person  

Appeared In Person

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act

IR-SC-00003481

27/11/2024

On 27 November 2024, the Worker submitted a Dispute for investigation. The Employer did not object to the proposed investigation.

The Worker claimed that he had been compelled to leave his job as a glass cutter on 26 November 2024.

The Employer disputed the claim and contended that the worker resigned in a voluntary capacity.

Both parties made helpful written submissions.

The Worker outlined that he had worked with this employer for a period of 3.5 months before resigning on the 26 November 2024.

He described a period of uncertainty on the demarcation of role, training and development and status within the business. He demonstrated an unease that his resignation had failed to release his accrued but untaken annual leave as the company had subsumed sick leave in error.

The Worker spoke freely on his high level of uncertainty during his employment and confirmed that he had not actioned a grievance in seeking to resolve the conflict. Instead, he had awaited his probation review meeting.

In short, he felt he didn’t feel wanted or supported at the business and moved on.

The Worker sought compensation for having to leave his job. He remained  aggrieved by the non-resolution of his accrued annual leave.

The Employer made an early response to this Dispute on 16 December 2024, when they submitted the workers letter of resignation of 26 November 2024.

This contained a paragraph that the worker was moving on to take up another  offer of work .

 “that would suit me way more “.

The Employer came to hearing with a strong rebuttal of the claim and a declaration that the worker had indicated that he was happy to carry on his apprenticeship a number of days before leaving and then just left.

The Employer had been prepared to apply a modest pay rise, and the parties had agreed on this by handshake.

The Employer spoke frankly at hearing regarding the lack of parameters for an apprenticeship in glass cutting as a craft. Instead, they were endeavouring to provide onsite training in this area and believed that the worker was supported.

The Employer countered the workers recollection of his work experience and listened astutely .

In conclusion , the employer communicated that they were disappointed that they gave the worker an opportunity for a craft and he just left without discussion .

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

I have listened carefully to both parties as they recounted their particular recollections of what occurred in this employment.

Both parties recall very different issues during this employment .

As the hearing progressed, it became clear that the uncertainty surrounding the lack of formal apprenticeship was a point of contention for the worker. He struggled in the trainee model and decided to leave.

The Employer presented as very proud of the longevity and success of the business and contended that in the absence of a formal apprenticeship, the employer  had the means to replicate this and  provide a trainee ship programme. The Workers friend had engaged in this .

For my part, this was an unsuccessful employment, and the worker was free to leave at any time. However, I would have preferred if he had been frank with the employer prior to his departure and had extended some effort to resolve his points of concern within the employment .

The recourse to the WRC came one day after his resignation .

The WRC requires parties who are in dispute to make some effort at local resolution prior to approaching the WRC.

At any rate, the parties have agreed to move forward and close this matter by agreeing that the workers annual leave can be distinguished from his sick leave in full and final settlement of the claim.

The parties have agreed that the worker is to receive €488.00 in compensation for matters unresolved at the conclusion of the hearing. i.e. sick leave / annual leave.

This figure does not attract a tax deduction and is in full and final settlement of the claim.

I have found some merit in the claim .

Claim for having to leave work.