ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

A Worker V An Employer

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00000313

Complaint(s)/Dispute(s) for Resolution:

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 01/02/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gerry Rooney

1. Procedure:

1.1. In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 13 of the Industrial relations Act, 1969 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(s)/dispute(s).

3. Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

3.1. This claim relates to a complaint by the Complainant (a meat factory worker) that following an altercation in the workplace from a fellow worker that the Respondent (a meat producer) failed to conduct a fair investigation of her issues in accordance with its grievance procedures.

3.2. The Complainant is a Polish national who has been working for the Respondent since November 2008. In her submission the Complainant contended that since February 2015 she has experienced problems with the production manager who started work at the plant around this time.  In this regard the Complainant said that she had experienced ignorance and a complete lack of respect from the production manager where she raised her concerns with a more senior manager at that time but she received no response regarding her concerns.  

3.3. However her complaint specifically refers to the handling by the Respondent of an alleged incident that occurred on 9th July 2015.  The Complainant alleged that on this date a work colleague pushed her out of the way and cursed at her when she was returning to the production line. She brought her complaint immediately to management (under Stage 1 of the Respondent’s grievance procedure) who met with her and her work colleague, but the Complainant contended she was told nothing had happened and that the Respondent upheld that no wrongdoing had occurred. As she found the event stressful she went home sick and visited her doctor where she was certified for  sick leave. 

3.4. The Complainant was unhappy with how her complaint was handled and she subsequently progressed her complaint through Stage 2 of the grievance procedure where she asked that the CCTV footage be reviewed, and where she complained that she was treated in a discriminating and unprofessional manner at the Stage 1 grievance hearing. She met with another manager on 5th August 2015 who held the Stage 2 meeting. The manager subsequently issues a written report on his findings where he upheld the outcome of the Stage 1 hearing.

3.5. On 25th August 2015 the Complainant wrote to the Respondent advising that she was unhappy with the outcome of the Stage 2 hearing, and she was invoking Stage 3 of the procedures where she complained that she was treated unfairly, was ignored, and was wrongly advised at the Stage 1 hearing that a problem did not exist with her work colleague.  The matter was reviewed at Stage 3 by another senior manager who issued a report on 14th September 2015 where the manager found that the procedures offered to the Complainant had been fair, and where he upheld the previous finding from Stage 2 of the procedure.  At this stage a mediation process as offered to the Complainant as a possible opportunity to address the matters that had occurred between herself and her work colleague.

3.6. The Complainant alleged that she had not been provided with any of the meeting notes that were produced from the Stage 2 or Stage 3 meetings, despite the fact that the meetings were recorded.  She contended that she also had to seek the meeting notes and only received them after the process was completed.  As a consequence she did not feel safe at work and raised further concerns with the Respondent on 19 October 2015 regarding their handling of the situation and where she concluded the Respondent, at all levels, accepted physical abuse of their staff.  Her correspondence also inferred that she was treated differently because of her nationality, however she did not make a complaint under the Employment Equality Acts. The Complainant subsequently brought her complaint on 25 October 2015 to the WRC for adjudication.

4. Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

4.1. The Respondent contended that it dealt with the matter properly and provided the Complainant with fair hearings throughout.  

4.2. The Respondent argued that it held an initial meeting with the Complaint under Stage 1 of its grievance procedures. Having reviewed the CCTV footage, and spoken to the other work colleague involved, it did not identify that and incident occurred in the manner alleged by the Complainant.  The Respondent provided CCTV footage of the event at the Adjudication hearing as it felt it was important for the Adjudication hearing to see this and draw its own conclusions regarding the incident, which the Respondent argued was not an obvious occurrence of misconduct.  Based on its observations of the event the Respondent further contended that its subsequent handling of the matter was reasonable. (The Complainant did not object to the CCTV footage been submitted).

4.3. The Respondent contended that when the Complainant was unhappy with Stage 1 of the process it responded in a timely manner to her appeal and appointed a more senior manager to review the grievance.  Again when the Complainant remained unhappy with the findings at Stage 2 it responded to the Complainant and progressed with a hearing at Stage 3.  At this stage the Respondent appointed a more senior manner whom it contended thoroughly reviewed matters, and having considered the issues upheld the findings of the Stage 2 grievance hearing.  The Respondent also believed that the correspondence between the Complainant and the Respondent (submitted to the hearing) would demonstrate that the Respondent behaved reasonably at all stages and where it contended its findings were correct under the circumstances.  Whilst acknowledging that it did not provide the Complainant with the notes of her meetings with management at the time, it did provide them to the Complainant later.

4.4. The Respondent contended that the CCTV footage indicated if anything happened on the production line between the Complainant and her colleague it was of an insignificant nature.  The CCTV footage showed the colleague joining the production line very close to the Complainant and where the Complainant immediately left, but nothing untoward or aggressive was observed.  Based on that the Respondent could not uphold the Complainant’s version of events, and although it did entertain her various appeals nothing new came to light which would cause it to overturn the Stage 1 and 2 decisions.

4.5. Furthermore the Respondent’s correspondence to the Complainant indicates it offered her a mediation process with her work colleague to resolve matters, and rostered the parties so that they should not normally have to work on the same production line into the future.

5. Findings and Conclusion:

5.1. Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint  in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

5.2. In this regard the complaint is raised under the Industrial relations Act 1969, and in accordance with Section 13 of that Act I am entitled to investigate the matter and make a recommendation to the parties setting forth my opinion on the merits of the dispute.  I must therefore decide whether the Respondent has behaved unreasonably in relation to its procedural handling of the Complainant’s grievance.

5.3. Whilst the Complainant inferred she was treated in the alleged manner due to her nationality, there was no complaint made under the Employment Equality Acts.  The hearing therefore focused its findings on the substantive complaint where it is alleged that the Respondent did not treat the Complainant fairly with regard to the conduct of the grievance procedures

5.4. Based on the evidence presented I am satisfied that the Respondent adhered to its own grievance procedures and afforded the Complainant a hearing and two appeals.  The nature of the alleged incident as shown on the CCTV footage appeared insignificant and accordingly the Respondent’s conclusions of this event appear reasonable.  Additionally it is noted that the Respondent offered the Complainant mediation with her colleague, and additionally has indicated it will avoid rostering the employees on the same production line where possible.

6. Decision:

6.1. Based on the aforementioned review and consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing I do not find the Respondent has handled the situation unreasonably or that its procedures were flawed.

6.2. The option of mediation should be considered by the Claimant, and the Respondents decision to not roster the Claimant and the colleague on the same production line should be adhered to.

Dated:   11th May 2016