ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Clerk v Post Office

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00006334

Dispute for Resolution:

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969	CA-00008664-001	08/12/2016

Venue: Lansdowne House, Dublin 4.

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 27/02/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.

Background

The Complainant is employed as a Clerk since 4^th September 2007. He is paid €631.59 per week. He has claimed that his employer has failed to properly investigate and address his complaints of bullying and harassment.

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

I am a semi-state employee whom has been out of work since late May 2016 to 7th February 2017 due to REPETITIVE bullying and harassment from a line manager and two clerical staff. The bullying that I have been subjected to commenced in June 2014. The line manager was alerted to me being bullied and in July 2014 by an email from a union representative and she did not suppress the bulling. She then has engaged in the bullying herself during late last year (2015) and early 2016 etc. When I did raise the matter of bullying/harassment with the line manager, she convinced me that I was ‘overly sensitive’ and imagining it. She then demanded that I get a transfer to another work area. When I visited my doctor in late May 2016, she knew immediately that I was stressed from the repetitive work place harassment. I contacted Human Resources in work about the bullying in February 2016, and then I made a grievance case to the central operations manager in April 2016. I followed all the procedures regarding how to forward a complaint to the HR department in my place and I also sought guidance from the company’s ‘dignity at work’ book. I firmly believe that I have been subject to a number of repetitive bullying examples that have been listed on the Respondent’s dignity of work booklet. Surprisingly, no wrongdoing cited against the three colleagues on any of the sixteen grievances that I had submitted to HR and Central Operations Management for investigation. There was a lack of witnesses on my side and the witnesses on the three colleague’s side all supported each other. Two of the witnesses that were called on the three colleague’s side were also engaging in the bullying in a periphery context at various stages throughout 2015 & 2016. The line manager has had a number of other complaints forwarded to Human Resources Management against her over a number of years. She has made up even more lies against me since I made the complaint against her to operation management. There is a lot of disquiet and a low morale in the work place amongst some staff as a result of the cronyism, favouritism and bad work practices that the line manager (referred to above) allows happens under her management. The Respondent’s internal investigation has now been fully exhausted and I do not accept the outcome of the investigation. Both unions that I was/ am a member of were no help what so ever. I am very annoyed and upset at my treatment. I have been prescribed anti-depressant pills and sleeping pills by my local doctor and psychiatrist over the last few months and also have attended a counsellor. It has had and continues to have a detrimental effect on my mental health. I have been also attending the occupational health therapist at work as well. I have received 'minimal' legal advice from a solicitor. The Respondent have stated ‘no wrongdoing’ on my behalf and also accept that I am not ‘fabricating’ any of the grievances etc. My work record in the place has been impeccable and blemish free since started working there in 2007.

It is his position that he has raised a total of 16 grievances, none were upheld and only No. 7 was partially acknowledged. One week later he went out sick from 23^rd May 2016 to 6^th February 2017.He had been a union member but left one to join another. His new representative was unhelpful. He appealed the outcome in August 2016. He met with the Head of Operations on two occasions. He tried to get him back to work. The outcome was that his complaints were no upheld. He appealed this to the HR manager the outcome was that in the absence of witnesses no case was established. The matter was then referred to the Workplace Relations Commission. He then applied for a transfer and this was agreed. Matters have been OK since.

This whole matter has been very unfair. The witnesses were also bullying him. They have a cosy relationship with the unions. He sought the assistance from his two local TDs. He is seeking justice. He has been wrongfully accused of not doing his job and has been bullied. He is seeking a finding in his favour.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

The Complainant raised a grievance with his immediate supervisor on 27^th January 2016 concerning an incident with a colleague on 15^th January 2016.He also approached HR with his concerns. The supervisor carried an investigation into his complaint and interviewed witnesses. He was informed of the outcome on 8^th February that the findings were inconclusive due to the discrepancy between his and the witnesses versions of events. He was encouraged to stop dwelling on the past and concentrate on the future. Formal grievances were lodged by the Complainant under the Respondent’s Grievance Procedure. They were processed at three procedural levels local, intermediate and senior. On 20^th April 2016 he filed an extensive list of workplace grievances relating to his supervisor and two colleagues. They were investigated at local level. He did not accept the findings and it was escalated to intermediate level. He did not accept the outcome and escalated it to senior level. He then decided to progress his matters to the Commission. While this was ongoing the Respondent without prejudice engaged with him with a view to relocating him at work and getting him back to work. This has now been achieved.

The Respondent dealt with every grievance that he has raised. He has utilised the Grievance Procedure at local, intermediate and senior level. His grievances could not be substantiated. The witnesses put forward by him did not corroborate his account. In the absence of supporting evidence the Respondent could not compel the respondents to apologise or impose sanctions against them. He is seeking a resolution of matters to his satisfaction on terms that are simply not possible or reasonable and he has escalated his grievances through the levels because he was not hearing what he wanted to hear. As his allegations remained unproven / unfounded, he has refused to accept the outcome. Throughout all of this the Respondent has continued to support him with the sick pay and to try to facilitate a return to work in an alternative location, which was achieved on 7^th February 2017. This complaint is not well founded.

Findings

I note that the Complainant raised specific complaints.

I note that these were investigated at local, intermediate and senior level.

I note that the outcome was that these were unfounded.

I find that he has failed to establish his case. I note that witnesses that he nominated did not corroborate his position.

Yet he has failed to accept any of these outcomes.

He has sought the assistance of his two local TDs, one a government minister. He has advised that his union representatives from two unions were unsupportive.

I note that he has utilised and exhausted the local channels of appeal. He has had all of his grievances investigated at local, intermediate and senior level. He has been given the right of representation and appeal.

I find that none of his grievances have been upheld.

I find that the Respondent t has investigated all grievances and has applied fair procedures throughout all stages. Each complaint was investigated, witnesses interviewed, he was offered the right of representation and the right of appeal. In addition they have continued to engage with him in order to get him back to work and find an alternative location at work.

I note that this has been successfully achieved on 7^th February 2017 and he has stated to this hearing that matters are OK since.

I find that he has now exhausted the internal channels available to him and his complaints were unfounded.

I find that his complaint is not well founded in that all of his grievances were investigated and the Respondent has applied fair procedures throughout.

I commend the Respondent’s patience in this matter.

Recommendation:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a decision in relation to the dispute in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

I recommend that the Complainant now accepts the outcome of this process.

I recommend that he accepts that his grievances have not been upheld.

I recommend that he now accepts that this should be the end of the matter.

I recommend that he now concentrates on the future and stops dwelling on the past.

I recommend that he accepts the transfer as the best option to him, giving him a fresh start.

I recommend that he embraces the new opportunity and gets on with the rest of his life.

Eugene Hanly

Adjudication Officer

Dated: 24^th April 2017