Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Tutor

Sewing Classes for Children

Representatives

Self-represented 

Kevin Callan, Callan HR

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Dispute seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00003968

17/10/2024

The employer is a business engaged in providing fashion design and sewing classes to children.  The company was established in 2015 and now employs around 40 people.  The worker commenced with them on January 31st 2017.  When she started, she was recruited at €10.00 per hour.  She resigned on April 11th 2024, following a dispute with her employer about a change to the date on which wages are paid each month and about the requirement for employees to upload a work-related application on their personal phones.  When the worker terminated her employment, she was a senior tutor and her hourly rate of pay was €17.00.

The genesis of the worker’s grievance seems to me to have consolidated in the decision of the employer to introduce the HR Duo application or “App” which employees were required to upload to their phones.  The App was introduced in June 2023, around the same time as monthly wages were changed from being paid on the last Friday of the month, to being paid on the last Friday of the month or the first Friday of the following month.  The worker said that she refused to upload the App, because she said that she felt used.

In her written submission to the WRC, the worker said that she was required to carry sewing machines in her car to the venues where training was taking place.  She said that she had no business insurance and she paid for her own fuel.  She didn’t receive expenses and she used her car for the business at her own expense.  She said that other employees had their expenses covered and that this was confirmed by one of the directors.  On two occasions when she was on her way to a venue, she was involved in an accident, and her car was damaged.  She said that her employer didn’t compensate her for the cost of the damage and didn’t enquire about how she was.

The complainant was concerned about the times that the classes were short-staffed due to employees being absent.  She referred to an occasion when she was instructed at the last minute to attend work at a venue she hadn’t worked in previously.  When she arrived, she said that a man in a dressing gown opened the door and it turned out that it was the wrong place.

Employees were required to download the HR Duo App on their phones and to keep their location on.  The worker said that she asked the HR manager for approval to take two days’ holidays, and she was instructed to apply for the holidays through the App. 

A second App was used to record information about children attending the classes.  The complainant said that she didn’t agree to having information about the children, including their addresses, phone numbers and parents’ names on her phone.  She said that she told her employer that she would use a work phone, or an iPad or a computer, but she objected to using her own phone.

The complainant said that the company has a tutor group on WhatsApp to which is sent photos of students in classes.  She said that she was concerned, from the perspective of child protection, about having pictures of the children on her phone, but her employer didn’t address her concerns.

When she sent some messages to the group chat, the complainant said that they were deleted by the directors.  She then decided to leave the group.  One of the directors put her back into the group and a copy of a message provided by the directors shows that she told the worker to “come to us” if she had issues and that “We try and keep the group chat upbeat and positive.”

In the planning for certain events such as the annual fashion show, the complainant said that material such as sponsorship cards and parcels were sent to her home address without her permission.  She said that every year when she was working for the employer, her personal address was sent to various companies without her permission.  Seven months after her resignation, she said that vendors were still sending emails to her personal email address.

On one occasion, the complainant said that she agreed to work in a venue in Ashbourne for four weeks, because a member of staff was sick.  She said that she ended up working there for three months, travelling a much longer distance from her home in Santry and getting home much later.  She said that her employer didn’t pay her for travelling this extra distance or for the additional time that she spent travelling.

The complainant raised the change of the timing of payment of wages.  She said that, from the date that she commenced with this employer, she was paid on the last Friday of the month.  In 2023, she said that the pay day was changed, without notice and without any consultation with the employees.  The complainant referred to a schedule which showed the dates on which wages were paid each month from May 2023.  This shows that the date of payment varied from the 26th of the month to the sixth day of the following month, with a variety of days in between.  Wages were paid on Friday, December 22nd and the next pay day was Friday, February 2nd, resulting in a gap of six weeks between the payment of wages.  I understand from what the employer said at the hearing that this was explained by the early payment of wages in December.  The complainant said that she was very stressed by the change to the frequency of wages and she had meetings with her employer about this.  I understand that, arising from the complainant’s objection to changing the pay day, she was paid on the last Friday of every month.

The complainant didn’t upload the HR Duo App on her phone.  When she raised her grievance about the change in the pay day, she said that the HR manager instructed her to use the grievance procedure that was available on the HR Duo App.  The complainant said that this felt like she was being bullied into using the App.

The final meeting the complainant had with her employers was on April 11th 2024.  She said that she was requested to attend this meeting by the HR manager.  Although she asked if she could bring someone with her, she was instructed to attend on her own.  A copy of an email from the HR manager was included in her book of documents which shows that the HR manager told her that the meeting was “an informal conversation and not a formal meeting and as such there would not be a witness involved.”  She then asked what topics were being discussed and she asked for the meeting to be conducted over email.  The HR manager replied that the meeting was about the company and about classes.  The worker replied that she didn’t want to attend on her own and the HR manager replied, “…this is an informal conversation with me about classes…this is not a point where witnesses are involved.”  The worker replied that she would attend, but that she would leave if she felt intimidated.  The worker said that, when she arrived, the two directors and the HR manager were there.  The meeting took place in the home of the directors.  She said that the HR manager accused her of being rude to her employers and that she asked her why she spoke to other employees about their pay.  She was criticised for asking for a pay rise.  The worker said that she felt disrespected at the meeting and she told her employers that she was leaving.

In advance of the hearing of this dispute, Mr Callan submitted a detailed response on behalf of the employer. 

Addressing the introduction of the HR Duo App, Mr Callan said that the complainant refused to download the App and that she confirmed this to her employer verbally and in writing.  Mr Callan said that the employer went to considerable effort to source a HR advisory function which had a good and workable portal for employees to ensure compliance with employment law and best HR practices.  He said that the employer went to considerable effort to provide the worker with access to the portal but she did not utilise it before she decided to resign on April 11th 2024.

With regard to the change to the day on which wages are paid, Mr Callan said that the employer notified employees in writing on June 1st 2023 about changes to the payroll calendar.  The reason for the change was because employees were submitting hours worked in the last week of the month, before the hours were actually worked.  If an employee was absent in the last week of the month, the payment had to be clawed back and this caused inconvenience for the employee and the employer.  At the hearing, the directors said that, because the worker didn’t agree to the change in the pay day, they continued to pay her on the last Friday of each month.

In response to the worker’s grievance about her hourly rate of pay, Mr Callan submitted payslips of other employees that show that others doing similar work were not paid more than her.  I note however, that the worker’s grievance regarding her rate of pay was that others who had just recently joined the company were paid the same as her, whereas she had seven years of experience.

Mr Callan referred to five meetings that the worker attended with her employers to try to resolve her concerns:

March 27th 2023:  Meeting with the two directors in their home.

June 1st 2023:  Meeting with the HR manager in a coffee shop.

August 9th 2023:  Meeting in the home of the directors with one of the directors and the HR manager.  The worker walked out of this meeting.

August 15th 2023:  Meeting in a hotel with the two directors.

April 7th 2024:  Meeting with the with the two directors in their home, accompanied by the HR manager.

Mr Callan said that the directors and the HR manager were never disrespectful or aggressive to the worker.  He said that the company rejects any allegation of bullying by the HR manager and that her objective was to give the worker an opportunity to submit a grievance and to have it considered in accordance with the grievance procedure which is available on the HR Duo App.

Before she resigned from her job, the worker did not raise a formal grievance or a complaint, but she attended a number of informal meetings arranged by the company to try to informally resolve the issues she raised.  She refused to use the company’s formal HR channels.

The company rejects the worker’s claim that the HR Duo App was used for any purpose other than to provide the employees with a facility for,

• Accessing their HR documents;
• Ensuring compliance with legislation;
• Providing a platform for access to weekly rosters, policies and procedures;
• Providing a platform for the clocking in function;
• Providing a platform for staff appraisals and development pathways;
• Providing a platform for requesting approval for holidays.

Mr Callan submitted that it is normal practice in many sectors for employees to be provided with access to a HR-related App to include facilities such as the employee assistance service, policies and procedures and access to terms and conditions of employment.  He said that the suggestion that an employer should provide employees with a mobile phone to access the App is unreasonable.

If the worker had not resigned on April 11th 2024, Mr Callan submitted that the company would have carried out an investigation of any issues that she raised in the form of a complaint, either themselves or with the assistance of an independent third party.

I have listened carefully to the statements of the worker and the employer’s representatives concerning the issues that led the worker to resign on April 11th 2024.  What seems to have started out as a positive working relationship in 2017 ended very badly, with the worker feeling used and taken for granted.  I can understand how this happened, because the worker was with the business from the early days and she had seen it grow and become successful, and she had contributed to that success.  When she felt that she got no reward for her years of service, and when new employees with no experience were paid the same wages as her, she became demoralised and demotivated.  As a Latvian, with reasonable, but not fluent English, and with sole responsibility for the care of her son, who has special needs, she hadn’t got the same options for moving jobs as others.

Unlike most jobs, the worker was required to attend work at different places, depending on where sewing classes were offered.  She used her own car to transport sewing machines and other equipment, although she wasn’t paid a car allowance or expenses.  The carrying of equipment to the class venues is a business requirement, and the classes couldn’t take place if that wasn’t done.  In circumstances in which it would not be possible to do the job that the worker was employed to do, without the use of a car, it seems strange not to compensate her for the cost.    

The worker was also required to use her own mobile phone to support the business.  She had to upload lists of children attending classes and take instructions from the management regarding where she was to attend and equipment that she was to carry.  In 2023, the employer introduced the HR Duo App and asked their employees to upload the App on their mobile phones.  They were instructed to keep the location facility turned on.  While I can appreciate that this was useful for the employer and that it provided a central HR operations function, it is my view that employees who did not want to use their personal phones should have been facilitated with an alternative option, such as logging on to a computer in the workplace, so that their personal phones could be kept for personal use.  Alternatively, they could have been provided with work phones.

It is apparent from the information provided to me at the hearing of these grievances, that the use of her mobile phone for work, the cost of driving to locations and the worker’s concern to have certainty with regard to date on which wages were paid, all accumulated to the point where she was in dispute with her employer.  I note from the employer’s submission, that, of the five meetings that took place between May 2023 and April 2024, the complainant attended alone, and that her request to bring someone with her to the meeting on April 11th 2024 was denied.  This was unfair and not in accordance with the procedures that have applied in most workplaces for more than 50 years.

It is my view that most employees in the circumstances faced by this worker on April 11th 2024, would have felt disrespected and I think it was reasonable for her to resign.

To compensate the worker for the way she was treater by her employer, I recommend that the employer pay her compensation of €3,000, equivalent to approximately eight weeks’ pay.

Workplace grievances