Case Number: ADJ-00013862. Workplace Relations Commission

• Docket Number: ADJ-00013862
• Hearing Date: 18 July 2018
• Date: 12 December 2018
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission
• Parties: A Financial Manager v A Utility Company
• Respondent: A Utility Company

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00013862

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	A Financial Manager	A Utility Company

Representatives Ms Susan Jones B.L., instructed by Jones Magee Solicitors Conor O'Gorman IBEC

Complaint:

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977	CA-00018103-001	22/03/2018

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 18/07/2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Stephen Bonnlander

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015, following 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 filed her complaint on 22 March 2018, and the Director General delegated it to me for investigation and decision on 12 June 2018. I subsequently held a hearing with both parties on 18 July 2018. At the hearing, I requested additional brief submissions on legal points from the representatives of the parties, which were received on 21 August 2018 from the complainant’s representative and on 13 September 2018 from the respondent’s representative. The correspondence with the parties concluded on that date.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

In her brief written submission prior to hearing, the complainant stated that the respondent told her at various points that her job was no longer in existence; that she would be demoted and receive a pay cut; and finally, that she would be demoted without a pay cut. The complainant also stated that she was undermined in front of colleagues and excluded from training and meetings, and that her position was discussed in her absence by her superiors. The complainant states that these events caused her serious stress and worry to the point where she suffered ill health and was unfit for work. She states that the respondent failed to address these concerns adequately and that as a result, she had no alternative but to resign from her position. The complainant’s claim is for constructive unfair dismissal. She argues the reasonableness test for constructive unfair dismissal. In her oral evidence, the complainant stated that she commenced work for the respondent in 2011, and loved her job. She particularly enjoyed developing business systems. The complainant attracted no discipline or complaints and was praised for her work. In January 2017, Mr A. was appointed as the complainant’s manager. Mr A. had a brother, a nephew, and a brother-in-law who were all employed by the respondent. He was the brother of the manager who had previously praised her. Initially, the complainant worked well with Mr A. However, by 13 January, Mr A. told the complainant that whilst her job was safe, other jobs were at risk. On 25 January, he told the complainant to accept either redundancy or a lesser position within the organisation. On 3 February, Mr A. told a full room of the complainant’s colleagues that the complainant was no longer a manager. The complainant was subsequently left out of managerial meetings. According to the complainant, Mr A. veered in their personal meetings between assuring the complainant that her job was safe, and indicating that it was not safe. He also asked her to help him with his personal projects, and confirmed that this would be a PA role. The complainant stated that she did not alert the respondent’s HR department about these developments because, in her words, her “judgement was clouded” from the conflicting messages she received. The complainant decided to seek outside legal advice after seeking guidance from the Citizens Information Service. By late March, the complainant had started to suffer from panic attacks and attended her doctor. She received no less than three phone calls from Mr A. during this visit. Her subsequent absence on sick leave allowed the complainant to gather her thoughts and step back from her situation. She then contacted HR and met with the respondent’s HR manager off-site in a café. HR categorically denied to the complainant that she was at risk of either redundancy or other job loss. In terms of professional options for the complainant, it was confirmed to her that she would have to continue with both Mr A. and his brother. The HR manager also advised her to raise a grievance, which she did on 11 April. The complainant then remained absent on sick leave until December and, apart from what was required for the investigation of her grievance, did not hear anything further from the respondent, including inquiries about her well-being. The complainant received the outcome of her grievance on 4 August: It was partly upheld. However, the complainant noted in her evidence that her witnesses were not questioned by the investigators, and that she was still without an answer as to why Mr A. acted the way he did. Only Mr A. and his brother were questioned in the course of the investigation. The complainant felt that this approach had probably led to biased answers and therefore appealed the outcome of her grievance. The complainant eventually received an apology from the respondent, but she stated that she felt isolated and “shelved” by the company. The complainant resigned from the respondent’s employment on 22 February 2018. She confirmed at the hearing that she continued to receive treatment for the medical problems which arose from the events. In cross-examination, the complainant confirmed that it was not the threat of job loss which was central to her resignation, but rather the fact that despite the fact that she felt manipulated by Mr A. and had lost all trust in him, she was not offered an alternative role away from him and would have had to work with him again. He would also have been the manager responsible for facilitating her return to work. She also stated that she had lost trust in the respondent as a...