ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969

Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR-SC-00004390  

Parties:

Dispute:

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Date of Hearing:              11/03/2026

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended) following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute.

Background:

The Worker was employed by the Employer for 5 weeks.  She contends that she was bullied out of her employment and forced to sign a blank sheet of paper which was taken as a resignation by the Employer.

Summary of Workers Case:

The Worker’s complaint was outlined in detail in her complaint form and further written submissions were made containing some 16 pages and subsequently 5 more pages of  submissions related to the issues she encountered in her employment, including but not limited to:

• Constructive Dismissal
• Workplace Bullying
• Discriminatory Harassment relating to mental health
• Failure to provide Terms of Employment

She stated that she did not voluntarily resign from her position and was forced out of the role under pressure and without any fair procedures being followed.

On 26 May 2025, she was called aside by staff and asked to sign and date a blank sheet of paper. At the time:

• A second employee was present.
• No manager, HR representative, or union representative was present.
• She was told that “the situation is not working out” and that she needed to sign immediately or leave the premises. At the time she felt extremely distressed, intimidated, and under significant pressure. She was told to sign the document immediately or leave the premises, which made her feel that she had no real choice in the situation. She did not feel free to refuse, ask questions, or seek advice. Because of this pressure, she signed the paper even though she did not wish to resign from her position. For this reason, she believes that what occurred was constructive dismissal rather than a voluntary resignation.

Regarding training :

A training login was sent to the Worker through WhatsApp, however the training system would not work on her Android phone and only accessible on iPhone phones not Android. She informed staff that she could not access the training through her phone. She was told that the training could be completed on a computer in the store office. However:

• She was never shown how to access the training system on the computer.
• No one demonstrated how the training worked.
• No time was set aside for her to complete the training. As a result, she was never able to complete the training because she did not have proper access to the system. She asked questions about the training but no one ever showed her how to use the system, despite the employer now stating that training was provided. One employee said to her you have to come in on your days off to do the training.

WhatsApp messages were submitted to show the Worker asked for access to training and acknowledgement from staff that there were issues with the system.

The employer states that mistakes occurred including:

• Using the wrong chopping board
• Issues with weighing or pricing items

The Worker contended that she was told that pricing could vary depending on the customer. This created confusion and made it difficult for her to know the correct procedures.

• Customer complaints

The Worker denies that these issues were addressed through “normal instruction and encouragement”.  She submits that what actually happened was:

The tasks were never properly explained or demonstrated to her. She was expected to carry out duties without proper training, including food preparation, labelling items, and other deli duties. Mistakes occurred because she had not been shown the correct procedures. Instead of being supported, she experienced:

• Criticism in front of staff
• Negative comments about her performance
• No structured guidance on how to improve. No training session, performance review, or structured support was ever provided.

The Worker submitted that the employer’s written response does not accurately reflect what occurred during her employment. The evidence shows:

• A significant difference between the employer’s account and her experience.
• A workplace environment where she was not properly trained or supported.
• A situation where she felt pressured to sign a document and leave her employment without fair process.

Summary of Employer’s Case:

The Employer operates a small city centre convenience store. The store is trading since 2008 and employs over 18 people. The store trades from 7am to 10pm seven days a week. The store sells a mix of deli, hot food, cold salads and convenient ambient everyday items such as milk and bread. The store has a small off licence and services items such as lottery, phone top up and bill pay services. This store maintains an excellent store standard in Hygiene and HACCP and has done so since opening.

The Claimant commenced employment with the Company on the 22nd April 2025. Similar to all new starters, she was provided with a starter form, uniform, was set up on the time management system and was sent all relevant courses applicable to her role. In addition, during her training period, an additional person was rostered in the deli to ensure she received all the training required in her role. On the 19th May, the deli manager had asked the claimant if she had completed the courses that she had been provided. The Claimant confirmed that she hadn’t, as she couldn’t get onto the courses. The username and password were reshared with the Claimant to which she responded that she could not get onto them on her phone and would need to use the office computer. The Claimant was given access to the company computer by the store manager as is provided to all staff when they can’t complete the required training on their personal devices, however, the Claimant never availed of this facility to complete the required training.

On the 23rd May, the deli manager again requested the Claimant to complete the courses as she had been slicing the tomatoes on the wrong chopping board and therefore contaminated the tomatoes. The deli manager re-explained the colours of the chopping boards and the scales to the Claimant. The Claimant expressed that she just can’t seem to get it, however the deli manager reassured her that she will and that she just needs a bit more concentration and that she will get it. On Monday 26th May 2025, the deli manager reminded the claimant to concentrate when using the scales to price items as a number of customers were complaining that they were getting charged different prices but reassured her that she would pick it up. Later that day before going on her break, the Claimant stated to the deli manager that she felt it would be best if she handed in her notice. The deli manager requested the Claimant not to rush into any decision however, the Claimant decided to write out her notice and handed it to Deli manager, informing her (the deli manager) that the job did not suit her. The Deli manager then gave the notice to the store manager, who asked the Claimant to reconsider her decision, but the claimant said no. The shop Manager accepted and signed the resignation.

The claimant was employed up until 31st May 2025 during which she requested a letter for social welfare confirming she had finished employment with the company. This letter was provided to the Claimant on the 3rd June 2025 and she was paid out all monies owing to her. At no time during the Claimant’s employment did the Claimant raise any issues or concerns to her Manager, or to the Company.

The Employer/Owner stated that the Deli Manager had 12 years’ experience and he could not imagine her treating any employee badly.

Conclusions:

In this case, the Worker was in the employment for just 5 weeks.  In her complaint form and in her extensive submissions, she made some serious complaints about her treatment during her time working in the Supermarket.  The Employer strongly refuted that she was subject to any bullying or harassment.  I note the Employer in their submission stated that she was provided with a starter form, uniform, was set up on the time management system and was sent all relevant courses applicable to her role.  I note no evidence of a written contract of employment and this is a flaw in the Employer’s case for a number of reasons, including if the Worker did wish to avail of a grievance procedure she would be likely to be aware of this in a written contract.  There is complete disagreement between the parties in relation to the employment / work environment and the circumstances in the ending of the employment.  In the absence of any views or evidence given by employees who were accused of maltreatment, I cannot reconcile the conflicting views given by the Employer / Owner and the Worker.  It was clear however, that the Worker could not perform some tasks and the training deficit may have contributed to that.                                       

In order to close this dispute, to draw a line under it and recognising that some shortcomings occurred by both parties, I recommend the Employer offer the Worker a compensatory sum of €400 to compensate for not providing a written contract and grievance procedure.

Recommendation:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.  I recommend that the Employer offer the Worker a compensatory sum of €400 to compensate for not providing a written contract and grievance procedure.

Dated:   22/04/26

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Key Words: