Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Store Manager

A Food Company

Representatives

  Self-represented

 Peninsula Business Services Ireland

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-00065216-001

06/08/2024

The worker started employment with the employer on 12 December 2023 as a trainee store manager, with the prospect of taking over the store in the near future. After the initial busy Christmas period, he states that he began to observe that many aspects of the business were far from optimal. For example, there was no knife sharpening machine in the store. The only way to sharpen a knife was with a small block, done manually in an old-fashioned way.

The worker states that he started experiencing wrist pain at the end of January, and it was on and off for a while. The worker asserts that when it worsened to the point where he could not hold anything, he called in sick on 25 March and visited the GP on 26 March. The GP advised that it was repetitive strain on the wrist, most likely caused by using a dull knife. After reporting his sickness, he received an email from HR, stating that according to the Operations Director, he had resigned. The worker states that he did not provide a resignation letter at any point to anyone at the employer company.

During a meeting on 15 March 2024, the worker stated that he took his responsibilities as a manager very seriously and could not take over the shop unless he had some freedom to make changes to day-to-day operations, such as rota, training, and health and safety procedures. The worker reiterates that at no point did he state he was resigning.

The worker states that in his last two months at work, he made several proposals to address various issues to his superior, the Operations Director. However, the worker states that he was disappointed  by the total resistance to his proposals, most of which were simple and low-cost or reasonably inexpensive. The worker states that the issues that he wanted to resolve were bad operational practices that staff were used to and accepted as the norm but were glaringly obvious to an outsider. The worker states that his intentions were to make operations smooth, safe, and customer-focused.

The worker stated that he had annual leave booked straight after his sickness absence. The worker states that during his annual leave he realised his pay was cut. He states that he could not access his payslips so logged on to his Revenue “My Account” to see if there was a tax recalculation and it was at this juncture that he found out that his employment was terminated with the company as of 26 March.

The worker states that he believes he was dismissed because of his hand injury and the fact that he was trying to implement good procedures to make improvements to the running of the store.  He states that he was never late or underperforming in the role and did not receive any negative feedback from management while working for the company.

The respondent states that the worker failed to raise a grievance while he was employed with the company. The employer states that a meeting took place with the worker on 1 March 2024 to discuss the worker’s performance. The employer states that a further meeting took place on 15 March 2024 wherein the worker indicated that he wished to resign from the company.

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

I found the worker to be credible in the manner he presented his claim. While the employer states that the worker resigned his role, I do not find this assertion plausible given the sequence of events.

Having carefully examined this dispute, I find that the worker was not treated fairly by the employer. I conclude that the worker’s termination of employment in late March 2024 was unfair and was lacking in any fair process.

I find that the worker was not afforded fair procedures in accordance with the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (S.I. 146 of 2000).

In the circumstances I find in favour of the worker. I recommend that the employer pays the worker compensation in the amount of €1,950.

Industrial Relations Act