ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00005666
Parties:
Representatives | Ray Ryan (Trade Union Representative); Barbara Kelly (Trade Union Representative) | Edna Hoare (HSE Corporate Employee Relations) Gavin Maguire (HSE Corporate Employee Relations) |
Complaint(s):
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-00007916-001 | 01/11/2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 12/04/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Walsh
Location of Hearing: The Ardboyne Hotel
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 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 disputes.
Background:
The Complainant is employed with the Respondent since the 1 October 1983. He alleges that the Respondent failed to allow him to appeal a number of findings of the Screening Committee in relation to his bullying complaint. He also alleges that the Respondent failed to provide details of personnel on the Screening Committee. He alleges that the Respondent failed to provide copies of policy or guidelines used by the Screening Committee in arriving at their decision.He filed his complaint with the Workplace Relations Commission on the 1 November 2016. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Respondent carried out a preliminary screening of the complaints that he made against his manager under the Dignity at Work Policy. 13 of the 18 instances outlined by him were assessed as not falling within the definition of inappropriate behaviour and were therefore not addressed by the investigation. He sought to appeal the findings of the Screening Committee, but was denied the opportunity to do so. He expressed concerns in relation to the findings of the Committee in relation to the instances that were not allowed to proceed to investigation. Relating to point 3 and 9, the report states “Complaints related to instructions issued to a manager, do not fall within the definition of inappropriate behaviour”. In the Dignity at Work Policy page 5, it gives the following example of Bulling, -“Inappropriate overruling of a person’s authority, reducing a job to routine task well below the person’s skills and capabilities without prior di9scussion or explanation”. For 3 and a half years his decision on medical cards and doctor visit cards appeals was final without any managing or supervision or input from his manager. However in early 2015 she advised him that he should hold off issuing his decisions so that she could look at them to see examples where PCRS were making mistakes. The process has development into a review of his decision making and he was never advised about this change or the rationale for it. The example of bullying has reduced this part of his work to a routine task and has been embarrassing to him in front of staff, whereby his authority of appeal decision making has been removed without consultation or discussion. In his claim he referred to Case x which was an appeal that he granted on the bases of “Undue Hardship” grounds. The manager overturned his decision and directed him to disallow the appeal. The file could possibly be scrutinised by the Ombudsman’s office, it was therefore important that the process of the decision making is documented. He advised his manager that from a professional integrity point of view he could not change his decision due to his extensive experience of recognising financial hardship, but he was more than willing to send out a disallowed decision if he could document on the file that the decision was based on the direction of his manager. She was not prepared to accept this. She told him that he should change his decision. Her approach to this was unsatisfactory and demeaning to his role. Regarding point 4, the manner that the comment made that he was thinking like a “CWO” was derogatory and insinuated that his decision making was somewhat impaired. This comment was very demeaning, especially as his time in that position gave him a strong understanding of financial hardship assessment. It was also very confusing as he was initially appointed to this post because of his experience as a CWO. In relation point 5, 12, 14 and 16, the report states “no allegation here”. His claim indicates that he was left with no work or very little to do on many occasions, in spite of the fact that he had requested additional work. This was consistently done by his manager over the year and in February 2016 it was used by her to force him to sign a contract. This resulted in him coming to work and having nothing to do, just reading newspapers or books and his manager was very aware of this. This was very embarrassing for him, especially as the rest of the staff were fully aware of the situation. It was demeaning to him and hurtful. He is proud of his working record for over 33 years in the service and being idle was very difficult to endure. Regarding point 11 the report finds “The grade of Appeals Officer was struck out correctly, rather than the position of Appeals Officer. Therefore no inappropriate behaviour is documented”. The manager gave him a contract in 2011, which clearly detailed that he was an Appeals Officer. The form in question is the official notification submitted to the Department to advise who is accessing the system and why. Since 2011 he has been accessing the system for the purpose of reviewing appeals. The changing of grade details from Appeals Officer to CWO is inaccurate and does not reflect the rationale for him to access the system. On the basis of the change his accessing of the system since then, was not appropriate as the Department was not informed accurately for the reasons for his access. This form comes under Data Protection Legislation and is held in his personnel file. As his position was a bone of contention at the time, the reviewers should have picked up that from the complaint. He believes that this was done to further embarrass him and handing it to a colleague to give to him was either very unprofessional or calculated. He feels that the reviews were incorrect in arriving at this decision on this issue. He therefore feels that there should be a review or an appeal of the preliminary findings. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Complainant is fully aware that the purpose of preliminary screening of a complaint is to determine whether the alleged behaviour falls within the definitions within the Dignity at Work Policy and the outcome is used to determine whether it is appropriate to progress the complaint under the Policy. The preliminary screening was conducted by a member of the HR Directorate in accordance with the Policy and she made no findings of fact or determination as to whether the alleged behaviour occurred. The Complainant did not use the informal route to resolve his complaints. He did not agree to mediation. Therefore a preliminary screening exercise had to take place in line with the Dignity at Work Policy. In order to carry out he preliminary screening, the complainant must set out details of the alleged behaviour in writing including approximate dates and witnesses (if any) and the context in which the alleged behaviour occurred. The preliminary screening will be carried out the a member of the HR Department who will decide whether or not it is appropriate to progress the complaint under the Dignity at Work Policy. This assessment will be based exclusively on the written details of the complaint as set out the complainant. If the matter cannot be resolved through mediation a formal investigation will be carried out. The Respondent refutes the Complainant’s claim. The Complainant has been advised that should he have any issue with the preliminary screening he is welcome to exercise his right to invoke the grievance procedure, which he has chosen not to do. The Dignity at Work Policy does not provide an appeals process in respect of the preliminary screening. The Complainant has been offered mediation on several occasions, an offer he has refused. As mediation has not taken place, the matter has proceeded to formal investigation. The Respondent is satisfied that it has acted in accordance with the Dignity at Work Policy and refutes any suggestion to the contrary. Furthermore, both parties to the DAW investigation were sent a copy of the draft report of the investigation on the 9 September 2016. Comments and observation were to be submitted to the Investigation Team by the extended deadline of close of business on 4 January 2017. The Complainant duly submitted his comments and observation by letter dated 15 December 2016. The Investigation Team considered the correspondence and advised the Complainant that he believe that all pertinent matters had been considered in drafting the report and that it represented a true and fair view of the investigation, as per the Terms of Reference, and it’s conclusions are grounded in the evidence by both parties to the complaint. Should the Complainant wish to raise a grievance, he is obliged to set out the nature of his grievance in writing to his Line Manager, in order for the matter to be progressed appropriately. The date the Complainant has not raised a formal grievance on the matter, so he has not exhausted the internal resolution processes. |
Findings and Conclusions:
A preliminary screening was carried out by the Respondent in line with the Dignity at Work Policy. This screening was carried out to determine whether the alleged behaviour outlined by the Complainant against his Line Manager falls within the definition of bullying as outlined in the Dignity of Work Policy. The Screening Committee issued its findings. The Dignity Work Policy does not provide an appeals process in respect of the preliminary screening. The Complainant is asking for that policy to the changed. Such changes can only be agreed at national level between the Trade Unions and the Respondent organisation. However the Complainant can raise a grievance under the Grievance and Disputes procedure in relation to any aspect of the Screening Committee findings. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, I find that this complaint is not well founded. The Respondent has agreed structures in place with their employees’ in dealing with allegations of bullying. In this instance the Complainant is attempting to appeal the findings of the Screening Committee. The Dignity at Work Policy does not provide an appeals process in respect of the preliminary screening. |
Dated: 6th June 2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Walsh
Key Words:
|