ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00004912

Complaint(s)/Dispute(s) 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-00006793-001	05/09/2016

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 29/11/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) 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).

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

Due to bullying issues documented in my application already submitted. complaint ref ca-00005846 please could this be linked to complaint ref ca-00005585 plus complaint ref ca-00006048 as these are three complaints about the same company. In oral evidence the Complaint alleged a series of bullying and harassment complaints against a Director of the Company who worked in / supervised the operations of the Sop.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

The Respondent Managing Director Mr.AB resolutely denied all the bullying and harassment complaints. No approaches were ever made to him by the Complainant or to the Company formally under the procedures set out in the Company handbook (Copy supplied in evidence).

Recommendation

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 requires that I issue a Recommendation in his case.

Issues for Decision:

Did Bullying and Harassment of the nature described take place in the Shop in question?

Legislation involved and requirements of legislation:

The Industrial Relations Act, 1969

Recommendation

There was significant conflict of evidence between the parties in this case. The case was overshadowed to a major extent by an Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 case being taken by another family member – the Complainants’ mother against the same employer. The mother was in employment for the same periods and had similar issues. This case was scheduled for a hearing date in less than a week from the hearing of this case.

The key witness in the case – the Shop Director –against whom the allegations were being made was not present at the hearing. The Respondent had been under the impression that this (IR Act) claim was out of time. However it was clarified that under the IR Act of 1969 the claim was in time and could be heard.

The Respondent had no other valid explanation as to why the key witness was not present.

Faced with a profound conflict of evidence and the fact that all the pertinent issues in question and I understood ,the relevant witnesses, would be examined in the UD Act case the following week my Recommendation is that this case ADJ 4912 (Complaint CA-00006793-001) be closed.

However I grant liberty to the Complainant to lodge a new claim, if she feels this is warranted, following the outcome of the related UD Act case involving her mother.

Dated: 10^th March 2017