Case Number: ADJ-00013200. Workplace Relations Commission

• Docket Number: ADJ-00013200
• Hearing Date: 20 July 2018
• Date: 01 December 2018
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission
• Parties: A Launderette Worker v A laundry

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00013200

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	A Launderette Worker	A laundry

Complaints:

Act	Complaint Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994	CA-00017014-001	23/01/2018
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991	CA-00017014-002	23/01/2018
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977	CA-00017014-003	23/01/2018

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 20/07/2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patsy Doyle

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994, Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.

Background:

This case concerns a period of 20 months of employment which ended in July 2017. The Complainant was legally represented and the Respondent represented herself in the company of her Accountant. The Claims centred on Constructive Dismissal, terms of employment and pay deemed to be outstanding. The Respondent refuted the claims. At the commencement of hearing, the Respondent agreed to amend the legal title of the Employer and I recorded the change on consent.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant worked as a Laundry Assistant receiving €10 per hour for a variety of weekly hours ranging from 11 hrs to 29 hrs to 14 hrs. In addition, she undertook laundry deliveries for €10 per delivery. The Complainant outlined that she had not been provide with any contract of employment and the Business was bereft of employment procedures such as grievance, disciplinary or Bullying. CA -00017014-001 Terms of Employment The Complainant stated that she did not receive a statement of her terms of employment. CA -00017014-002 Payment of Wages The Complainant outlined that she ought to have received €420.00 in unpaid wages, holidays and unpaid notice. CA-00017014-003 Claim for Constructive Dismissal The Complainants representative outlined that the Complainant terminated her employment as a Laundry assistant on an involuntary basis in July 2018. She followed this up by way of a letter of resignation dated July 24. She submitted that the complainant was afraid at work and troubled by the persistent uncertainty of shifts and having a sense that she was blamed for everything that went wrong. She stated that the Complainant became stressed during weekend working and following allegations made by the Respondent that she had “messed up the business “The Complainant was weighed down by an accumulation of being unfairly judged and did not have recourse to a Grievance procedure. The Complainant had been suspected when € 260 went missing from the Till in June 2017. She had not taken the money and did not know what happened to cause the loss. The Complainant also submitted that her wage payments were erratic and she was restricted in telephone use. The tipping point for the complainant came during July 2017 when she was working alone and received a follow up call from the Respondent and accused that an issue with Uniforms destined for delivery to a local hotel had not worked out and blame was apportioned entirely to her. The Complainant could no longer cope. The Complainant did endeavour to resolve the situation and” be heard “but she was missing any tools for resolution and she had no option but to resign her position. The Complainant did indicate that she had been happy on the letter of resignation but qualified this at hearing by stating that she was scared to say that she was unhappy. The Complainants representative submitted that she had not met with her employer post the unsatisfactory comments in relation to the Hotel Uniforms. In her evidence to the hearing, the complainant confirmed that she loved the job, her first in 18 years, but began to develop a sense of exclusion when her hours were scaled back, dry cleaning training was given to another employee and she upset regarding a false allegation of theft. Her sleep was affected. Matters deteriorated further when she received an abusive phone call from the Respondent to her home on July 23. She was accused of dragging the business down when uniforms were not received by the Hotel. The call was overheard by her children and this caused her upset. She understood that she received a disciplinary warning over the uniforms She submitted that she was left wondering what she had done wrong and the job was no longer fun and she stated that she was not supported at work. The Complainant emphasised that she had tried to sort out her work problems but she had not considered any other option outside her involuntary termination of employment. She gave evidence on loss and mitigation. During cross examination, the complainant confirmed that she just couldn’t talk to the Respondent and she was left with no other choice outside resignation. She confirmed that she was in receipt of a DSP family payment. The Complainant representative submitted that there are many instances of employee/employer conflict at work but few would have “lost the plot “as the Respondent did with the complainant on that Monday when she was called...