Case Number: ADJ-00004045. Workplace Relations Commission

• Judgment Date: 01 September 2017
• Year: 2017
• Docket Number: ADJ-00004045
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission
• Parties: A Site Coordinator v A Provider of Cleaning Services

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00004045 Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	A Site Coordinator	A Provider of Cleaning Services

Representatives Marius Marosan IBEC

Complaint:

Act	Complaint Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977	CA-00005863-001	15th July 2016

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 23rd February 2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham

Procedure:

On the 15^th July 2016, the complainant referred a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission pursuant to the Unfair Dismissals Acts. The complaint was scheduled for adjudication on the 23^rd February 2017. The complainant attended the adjudication and was represented by Marius Marosan. One witness attended for the respondent and it was represented by IBEC.

In accordance with Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

Background:

The complainant commenced employment with the respondent on the 22^nd September 2014 and this came to an end on the 18^th April 2016. She worked 35 hours per week and was paid €12.50 per hour. The complainant claims that she was constructively dismissed from her role as site coordinator and the respondent denies the claim.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The complainant outlined that she had been treated very badly by the respondent, especially at the hands of her Supervisor. She commenced working for the respondent on the 22^nd September 2014 and was site coordinator at a third level university campus. Her role was to coordinate the cleaning of university buildings, for example student residences. She was not introduced to her staff or shown to the buildings. She was also not given any training. All she received was a list of cleaners. It took her three or four weeks to make contact with the cleaners and the clients to gather all the information she needed. She did not want the respondent to look bad and when she raised this with the Supervisor, she was met with an aggressive response.

The complainant made a formal complaint to the respondent HR Director on the 11^th December 2014. This followed a period when she was humiliated from the 9^th December 2014 onwards. She said that she was crying all the time and having panic attacks. She went on sick leave for work-related stress. She also went to see the company doctor. The complainant outlined that in October 2014, she took time off as her daughter was sick with a chest infection.

The complainant said that she attended an interview on the 18^th December 2014 and she has been upset at this meeting. She had not seen the minutes of the meeting presented by the respondent to the adjudication. She said that they were accurate apart from they did not include the complainant’s reference to trying to contact the Supervisor, who told her not to disturb her. The HR Director said that they would meet again before Christmas. This did not take place and the next contact she had was the invitation to attend the company doctor in February 2015.

At the meeting of the 11^th March 2015, the complainant repeated her grievances and expanded upon them. The respondent asked if they could contact her colleagues to ask about her and she replied that she did not mind. She was trying to control herself. She asked for the respondent bullying policy and the health and safety policy and they were sent to her. She said that the last time she heard from the respondent was in relation to the lap top. On the 11^th April 2016, she sent an email to the respondent looking for “a solution” but never received a reply. It appeared to the complainant that the respondent wished her to leave. The complainant said that she continued to submit sick certificates but heard nothing from the respondent. She did not follow up with the respondent as she did not want to push people. She never received a P45. The complainant outlined that she had looked for alternative employment and was ashamed to contact a previous employer, another cleaning contractor. She had left this role to take up the site coordinator role with the respondent. She was on medication for her blood pressure. The complainant outlined that she had been certified as fit for work in December 2016. In respect of redress, the complainant said that she could not go back to work for the respondent and she was seeking compensation.

In reply to the respondent, the complainant said that she had availed of internal procedures. She had contacted the HR director and followed the grievance procedure. The respondent had not dealt with the issues she raised. It should have all the copies of the minutes and in particular the letters. The complainant said that she did not receive any letter from the respondent in March or April 2015, and if the letter had been sent to her, why did the respondent not refer to this following her email to the respondent on the 11^th April 2016.

In an email of the 3^rd August 2017, the complainant responded to the documents submitted by the respondent. She disputed the references made to her saying she intended to resign and that Supervisor would be on site every two weeks.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The respondent outlined that the claim should fail as the complainant had not exhausted...