Case Number: ADJ-00005452. Workplace Relations Commission

• Docket Number: ADJ-00005452
• Hearing Date: 03 May 2017
• Date: 19 January 2018
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission
• Parties: A Finance Assistant v An IT security firm
• Respondent: An IT security firm

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00005452

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	A Finance Assistant	An IT security firm

Representatives None None

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-00007659-001	17/10/2016

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 03/05/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham

Procedure:

On the 17th October 2016, the complainant referred a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission pursuant to the Unfair Dismissals Act. The complaint was scheduled for adjudication on the 3rd May 2017.

The complainant was accompanied to the adjudication by her father. An in-house solicitor represented the respondent and the HR Manager and the Finance Director attended as witnesses.

In accordance with section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, 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 on the 13th July 2015 and this ended on the 30th September 2016. Her latter role was as an Operations Assistant. Her salary was €19,200 plus a completion bonus for the new role of €3,000. She claims that she was constructively dismissed from her employment. The respondent denies the claim.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

In the complaint form, the complainant outlines that she was bullied by her new boss and following a mediation process, she and the line manager were to have one-to-one meetings. She describes the line manager as being aggressive and abrasive. Not only had the complainant to work closely with the line manager but she now also attended one-to-one meetings in the board room. The complainant broke down in the mediation and asked for her old job back. She had been junior finance assistant but stepped into the accounts payable role when a colleague went on maternity leave. She later became upset in the staff room after an interaction with the line manager about training in her replacement. The respondent did not do enough to resolve her complaint and became defensive when the complainant raised the stress these events were causing her. At the adjudication, the complainant outlined that she commenced working for the respondent as a receptionist. She then moved to the junior finance assistant role in November 2015. She was also doing a bookkeeping course relating to a named IT package. She later moved to an accounts payable position, available when a colleague went on maternity leave. She submitted a grievance complaint on the 6th July 2016 regarding how she was being treated by her new line manager. The manager was aggressive and abrasive, in particular how she stood over her. The complainant said that the line manager treated her differently to others. She made this complaint one month after starting to work with this new line manager. The complainant always loved working for the respondent and had no other problems. The complainant entered a mediation process with the line manager and others. She commented that the line manager would say that she was doing things wrong but would never tell her what. The complainant said that she went to work every day in tears. The line manager had made false complaints during the mediation, and the complainant felt intimidated by her, especially at the one-to-one meetings. The line manager would speak over her and would not allow her speak. The complainant reported this to the HR Manager and told her that she was intimidated. She was also belittled in front of colleagues. The complainant said that the line manager was saying that she made too many mistakes, but could not tell her what they were. In respect of the second mediation meeting, the complainant said that she sat crying at the meeting and asked to go back to her old role. The complainant raised the line manager’s abrasive approach and that she had become angry when the complainant described her as “barking” orders at her. The line manager would undermine her work and the complainant raised this in the mediation. As the mediation showed there would be no resolution, the complainant began looking for other jobs. She emailed the HR Manager with a list of issues which she described as causing unnecessary stress. The complainant stated that the details of the Employment Assistance Programme had only been supplied to her when she sent in the sick certificate. The complainant sent the email to the HR Manager on the day she said she wanted an easy life. This occurred on the 13th September 2016. The HR Manager asked her how the respondent should deal with the issues in the email. The complainant said that she had only been provided with a job description of the role at the start of August 2016. The complainant said that following her data access request, she was provided with emails of the line manager of early June 2016, but she had not been provided with later emails for example the line manager’s “bombarding” the complainant with meeting requests. In respect of an incident at work, the complainant described a telephone call where she was not able to be put through to an IT training company. She had said “stupid phone” but the colleague putting the call through to her had thought she had called him stupid. She denied this but the colleague had shouted at her. The complainant raised this with the Finance Director and no further action was taken. In respect of her phone, the complainant said that it was her understanding that employees could take over phone numbers and she had sought to take over her number. There were emails between her, the HR Manager and the Finance Director in relation to this.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

In written submissions, the respondent sets out the test for constructive dismissal and that the burden of proof rests with...