Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Cafe

Representatives

Jerry Lucey Blended HR

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 - 00002276

27/02/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

27/02/2024

The Worker worked from 24th April 2023 until 11th August 2023 as Store Manager.

The Worker applied for the position of lead barista. The owners felt she had the personality and experience so she was appointed Store Manager.

The owners were at the store in Dublin which is the biggest store for the first week, a visit in June and a visit in July 2023. They communicated via email and an online work platform. The Complainant reported to the General Manager in Dublin and received guidance from managers of the other two stores. The General Manager was let go in June 2023, and not replaced.

The Worker was informed the owners were having some personal issues in June 2023, and to lean on the managers of the other stores. The Worker took on the additional responsibility, and hours and tried not to bother the owners. Communication was sparse and some emails were left unanswered by the owners, which was difficult. The Chefs hours were cut in half, and the Worker stepped in to assist in the kitchen.

The owners came to Dublin in July 2023. The first issue was a direction to take down the pride flags, the Worker was told the café is apolitical and do not support any cause. This was the only indication the Worker had there was any issue.

The following day the owners came back to the store as they had contracts for staff and  the Worker was told she would receive a full time managerial contract. She was told the chef would be given other hours elsewhere, so he was not at a loss. She asked the owners to have a sit down to discuss issues raised by staff, promotions etc. The Worker raised staff concerns about their roles as the Chefs hours had been cut. One of the owners seemed very upset about this. The Worker explained that staff were concerned about the security of their positions and were seeking reassurance. The owner seemed annoyed and said the staff needed to be flexible and unfortunately, they were not in a position to keep a manager. The Worker was very shocked, and asked was there any other hours for her in the company. The Worker was told there was not and given two week’s notice. She was asked did she like working in the company and said she did. She opted to work her notice so she would be paid for two weeks.

Subsequently, the owners contacted her to say they would pay her in lieu to work her two week’s notice. She felt pressured to leave, collected her belongings and left. She needed a break for her mental health.

The Worker received an intimidating email from the owners with her final payslip. He mentioned that she was bound to her original terms and conditions of contract, which she never received and pursuing employees through the courts.

The Worker was informed by her colleagues that the owners told the team that she left as she did not suit the role, and things had gone missing. The Worker was embarrassed as this was untrue and felt humiliated.

On 27th August 2023 the Worker received an email from the owner accusing her of defamation due to a one star review being left on google by an artist who is one of the Workers followers. The company put the Workers full name in response to the post saying that she had been let go. She was unable to get the review removed through google and asked the reviewer to take the post down so her name could be removed from the public page. She felt sick and intimidated. She emailed the company directly and their response was different in tone, praising her while threatening defamation proceedings.

The Company advertised for a Café Manager in December 2024. She was never offered another role or less hours and believes her dismissal was personal. The Worker complains of bullying and harassment by the Employer and disciplinary sanctions imposed by the Employer up to and including dismissal.

The Worker commenced employment on the 24th of April 2023 as a Store Manager. Her employment was terminated by the company on 11th of August 2023 having been given over two weeks of notice.

The Worker was hired for the new Dublin store to ensure the store operated efficiently. The business owners attempted to mentor and support the Worker, but the store continued to operate at a loss. The Respondent made the decision in July 2023 to terminate the Workers employment as the future of the business was in jeopardy due to operating losses in the Dublin store. There were never any complaints of misconduct. The business needed the Dublin manager to ‘hit the ground running’ in order to ensure it generated sales and operated efficiently, to make it sustainable within a short period.

The business owners needed the store manager to work with minimum supervision as they were based in Galway, and were only occasionally in Dublin. At the time, one of the owners had lost a close family member in Australia and had been hospitalised following this bereavement.

During the first three months, the business owners attempted to work with the Worker in order to help her be more efficient with regard to rostering and reducing waste. They were not satisfied with the improvements made, and were not satisfied that she was committed to making the changes required. There has never been any suggestion the Worker acted dishonestly or in bad faith.

In July 2023 during a review of the business, it was found the Dublin store was operating at a significant loss. The Respondent made the decision that the owners would supervise the store directly and it was no longer feasible to continue to employ the Worker. A manager was hired five months later as the owners directly supervising the business was never sustainable. The Respondent have an apolitical philosophy and do not allow any flags or emblems to be displayed on their premises, these are removed irrespective of what they are.

The Respondent refutes any suggestion there has been any form of bullying and harassment or disciplinary sanction.

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

The Worker was appointed manager of a new store in Dublin in April 2023. The owners reside in Galway. The Employer says the Worker was guided on management of the store by owners and managers of other stores. In June 2023, one of the owners had a bereavement, and health issues so the owner’s availability was limited.

The owner said the Worker received training one day per week, and was supported by other managers. She was given guidance regarding recipes, promotion on tik tok and Instagram. The owner said there were regular customers complaining. The Worker needed two managers for support to get to standard. There were conversations by email encouraging the Worker to be proactive. It was not correct that the owners said the Worker was stealing, tasks were being missed, this was misinterpreted. The employer says the business was running at a loss and they could not keep the Worker on.

Following the Workers dismissal, the owner said a one-star review on the Cafe with specific information started appearing every week. The Worker received correspondence from the Employer regarding defamation which she denies. Subsequently, the posts were removed.

The Worker says she sought a role as Barista and was appointed to the job of Manager. She did not receive any negative feedback nor were there any issues raised until July 2023. The Worker met the owners in July 2023 and was told she would receive a full-time contract. The owners asked for the pride flag to be removed and seemed annoyed when she brought up staff concerns regarding job security. The owner then said the Café could not afford a full-time manager and chef. The Worker asked for other hours, but none were given. Five months later the role of Store Manager was advertised by the Café.

The Worker complains of disciplinary sanctions up to and including dismissal. However, no disciplinary sanctions were imposed on the Worker by the Employer while employed.

The Worker complains that she was bullied and harassed by the Employer. The Workers allegations of bullying and harassment relate to issues that arose between the parties subsequent to dismissal.

I make no recommendation in relation to these complaints.