Case Number: ADJ-00024148. Workplace Relations Commission.
| Docket Number | ADJ-00024148 |
| Hearing Date | 28 November 2019 |
| Date | 01 February 2020 |
| Year | 2020 |
| Court | Workplace Relations Commission |
| Parties | A Senior Sales Assistant V A Retail Store |
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00024148
Parties:
|
|
Complainant |
Respondent |
|
Anonymised Parties |
A Senior Sales Assistant |
A Retail Store |
Complaint(s):
|
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-00030726-001 |
09/09/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 28/11/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer
Procedure:In accordance with 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 commenced employment with the Respondent on 24 February 2011 as a Sales Assistant. She was promoted to Senior Sales Assistant following two periods of temporary cover of the position in or around 2013. In September 2019 the Complainant was made redundant. It is her claim that she was unfairly selected for redundancy and the Respondent’s case that fair procedures were applied throughout the process resulting in a fair dismissal. The dismissal was not at issue between the parties. Both parties agreed that it was team work well together and there was no performance related issues with the Complainant. |
|
The Complainant commenced employed on 24 February 2011 as a Sales Assistant and gave evidence that she carried out duties such as accepting deliveries, sales on till, fill out of stock on the shop floor, merchandise etc. All duties that her two other full-time colleagues were undertaking. She was promoted in 2013/201 to Senior Sales Assistant initially to cover a maternity leave for 8 months and then to cover a second maternity leave and was eventually promoted to the position permanently. The Complainant gave evidence that she took on some extra duties such as attending to emails and answering phones. She stated that she work where she was required and was trained in all areas. In June 2019, the staff at the Respondent’s store were advised by the Store Manager that it was in financial difficult and sought to reduce hours or if that was not possible, someone would have to be made redundant. Each staff member met with the Store Manager and discussed the possibility of a reduction of hours. The Complainant gave evidence that she was willing to reduce her hours to 22.5 hours per week. During this time, one full time Sales Assistant volunteered for redundancy and was advised of her redundancy payment. The Complainant was not advised of the total redundancy payment sum she would have been entitled to. The Complaint submitted that she was of the understanding that when this Sales Assistant volunteered this would be the end matter. However, by letter dated, 29 July 2019, the Complainant’s was advised her role was at risk and by letter dated, 2 August 2019, she was told that her position was being made redundant. It was submitted that there was no reason why the Complainant was selected for redundancy in the letter. On 12 August 2019, the Complainant’s solicitors wrote to the Respondent requesting an appeal to the decision to make her redundant. An appeal took place via conference call with a decision letter dated on 2 September 2019 confirming the decision to make her redundant. It was submitted that the Complainant was not given a fair right to representation as the Respondent only allowed a work colleague to attend meetings. In the circumstances, where all staff members were alleged to be at risk, there was no reality to this. The Complainant stated that she received her redundancy payment by cheque and returned it on the basis she was unfairly dismissed from her employment. Cross Examination During cross examination the Complainant was asked as to the basis she felt she was unfairly selected to which she replied, that when someone volunteer’s there was no reason why the Respondent would not go with them. The Complainant accepted that there was more detail in the 2 September 2019 letter as to the reason for her redundancy but noted this only came after the appeal. Financial Loss Both parties confirmed at the hearing that the Complainant worked with the Respondent on a 37.5 hours per week full time contract and received a gross hourly rate of €11.75. The Complainant gave evidence that she applied for two positions since the termination of employment and secured a one-year fixed term contract of employment on 6 October 2019. It is noted that the contract states her hours of work as “ad hoc” with a 6-month probation period. The rate of pay is €11.00 and Sunday Premium of €0.02c per hour. The Complainant gave evidence and provided a payslip that she was worked 25 hours a week since commencing apart from the school holidays where she was given full time hours. She stated that she expected that these hours of work would continue but there was no guarantee as per the nature of the contract. It was submitted on behalf of the Complainant that she was at a loss of €0.75 c per hour for every hour she worked and apart from school holidays she was employed on a part time basis. The Complainant submitted that she had to make two separate requests for a reference from the Respondent, which she received on 15 October 2019. The Complainant was also asked about her efforts to mitigate her loss and accepted that while her contract was on an “ad hoc” basis as Manager she would be required to work full time during school holidays.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
|
It was noted that the Store Manager was the only witness from the Respondent to attend the hearing. The redundancy decision maker, the Payroll and HR Manager, was not was not in attendance nor was the Group Retail Manager who heard the appeal. The Respondent submitted evidence of a downturn in sales in the store during the period 2018/2019, which prompted a review of operations. HR Costs were identified as one of the biggest overheads of the business. The Store Manager gave evidence that was never met the HR Team in the UK she did receive... |
To continue reading
Request your trial