ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00003091

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

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 01/11/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Joe Donnelly

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 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 dispute.

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

The complainant has not fully utilised the internal grievance procedures and, as such, has not afforded the respondent the opportunity to address or resolve her concerns.

The respondent had suggested an informal meeting with the parties as a means of resolving the issues but the complainant did not agree to this.

The respondent could not agree to the appointment of an external facilitator as requested by the complainant due to limited resources.

Decision:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute to the parties.

Recommendation:

The complainant is a manager with the respondent and has been employed since October 1999 on a full-time basis and is paid €4756.34 gross per month.

The complainant stated that part of the background to this issue was a situation that arose in July 2015 when the organisation’s administrator resigned. This resulted in an increased workload for the complainant. The engagement of a temporary administrator by the Board only added to the problems and the complainant felt that her position was undermined due to the lack of consultation with her in relation to this matter. The Board is comprised of persons who act on a voluntary basis.

A new Company Secretary was elected in May 2015. The complainant believed that the Secretary began to involve herself in matters that were not part of her responsibilities. The complainant also believed that the Secretary’s attitude was at times aggressive. In addition a sub-committee on volunteer staff was set up which appeared to the complainant to infringe on her areas of responsibility. The complainant provided details of other occasions when she felt that the actions of the Chairman and Secretary were further undermining her authority. This caused her great stress and eventually resulted in her going out on sick leave and being prescribed medication in that regard.

In April 2016, following an exchange of emails with the Secretary, the complainant formally lodged a complaint with the Chairman to the effect that the Secretary was directly issuing instructions to staff without recourse to the complainant who had responsibility for assigning duties to staff. The complainant queried if there was an attempt to change her terms and conditions of employment. The Chairman responded by stating that arrangements should be made for an informal meeting between the complainant, the Secretary and himself to discuss the matter. The complainant turned down this proposal but suggested a one-to-one meeting between herself and the Chairman. Some days later the Chairman replied to the effect that he was seeking a suitable Board member to deal with the complaint but that there were difficulties regarding their availability. Shortly after this the complainant lodged the submission form regarding the dispute with the WRC. The Chairman then wrote to the complainant inviting her to utilise the formal procedures contained in the organisation’s Harassment / Bullying Policies. The complainant declined this invitation but suggested a meeting with the provision that an agreed independent facilitator be engaged for this process. This was not agreed to by the Chairman due to the organisation’s limited resources.

Other issues then arose regarding the operation of a sub-group of the Board reviewing Voluntary Working as the complainant felt that some aspects of their remit intruded into her area of responsibility and that therefore she should have been included in the group. The complainant was advised that her job description was not being changed and requested her input into the group. A further issue was the tone and content of a series of emails from the Company Secretary to the complainant regarding access to company documentation. This resulted in a formal complaint to the Chairman from the Staff Health & Safety Representative.

I have taken into account the submissions, both verbal and written presented by both parties. The type of inter-personal conflict that has arisen is not unknown in the type of organisation represented by the respondent. The Board consists of voluntary persons giving of their own time to maintain the laudable objectives of the organisation. The organisation delivers a much needed service in a professional manner and this is achieved through management of resources and staff by trained and experienced employees. This service provision can be augmented by voluntary staff. It is important, however, that everybody involved is aware of their duties and responsibilities within the organisation and of the boundaries therein.

The complainant was the Senior Manager in the organisation and her main duties were laid out in her Job Description. The Board develops policies and the implementation of those policies is the responsibility of the Manager who in turn directs the staff. The link between the Senior Manager and the Board is all important and it is essential that a mutual bond of trust be maintained by both parties. It is clear that a blurring of the respective areas of responsibility has taken place in the organisation and that internal communications have been flawed in some respects. I do not intend to attempt to apportion blame in this regard. My recommendation is based on moving matters forward.

I recommend that the Code of Practice for Good Governance of Community, Voluntary and Charitable Organisations should form the basis on which the parties conduct their relationship for the future. All concerned persons should receive adequate training as regards the implementation of the Code and their role within the organisation. In addition I recommend that an agreed facilitator should be engaged to co-ordinate the introduction and implementation of the Code. Finally, as in any organisation, communications between the stakeholders are most important and the parties should reflect, with the assistance of the facilitator, on the lessons to be learned and the improvements to be made in this regard.

Dated:   08/03/2017