ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00003824

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

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 27/01/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marguerite Buckley

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 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:

The Complainant is a hotel housekeeper. She started employment with the Respondent on the 4^th of March 2004. She earned an average €300.00 net per week for a 32 hour working week.

Her claim is in relation to alleged bullying and harassment she experienced while working for the Respondent.

In 2016 there was an allegation of bullying made against the Complainant by a co-worker. An investigation into the allegations was carried out by an independent HR consultant internal to a large accountancy firm. The outcome of the investigation was that it was

“hard to substantiate alleged repeated intimidation by the Complainant towards her co-worker”.

The investigation recommended that:

1. Health and safety procedures be reviewed and communicated to all employees, and
2. Consideration be given to understand the change in working relationship by both parties with a view to seeking an agreed approach to manage forward and improve relations.

The acting Manager notified the Complainant of the findings and that there would be no further action on the matter.

Following this, the Complainant was invited to a disciplinary meeting arising because of an alleged breach of confidentiality during the investigation process. It was claimed by the Respondent that the breach of confidentiality potentially compromised the investigation and that the Respondent went to the effort and expense to hire and outside investigator to ensure an impartial, thorough investigation into the allegations against the Complainant.

The Complainant was given a formal written warning. The written warning was to be kept on her personnel file for one year.

The Complainant was confused with this correspondence because it conflicted with the outcome of the investigation. She felt that it was a personal vendetta against her. The Complainant felt she had no option but to bring a claim to the WRC about bullying and harassment.

When the Complainant attended for work on the 5^th of May 2016 she was thirty minutes late due to assisting a colleague who had a puncture with her car. The acting manager met her at reception and informed her that she should have telephoned to advise that she would be late. She sent the Complainant home without pay for the day.

The Complainant felt isolated. There was generally a very bad atmosphere in the hotel. She felt that responsibilities were taken from her. Changes were made to her hours of employment. Junior members of staff were given more working hours than her. She felt undermined as head housekeeper and dreaded going to work. She was on anti-depressants and sleeping tablets prescribed by her GP. She felt both her mental and physical health was affected.

She handed in her notice on the 1^st of May 2016 but withdrew it following representations from management.

Following another incident with the acting manager, she was suspended without pay from the 11^th July 2016. She was still suspended without pay at the date of the hearing.

I was advised that the Complainant’s son worked for the Respondent for a period of time and that his employment was terminated by the Respondent in April 2016.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

The Respondents submission was a vigorous rejection that the Complainant was harassed by the Respondent.

They denied an ongoing bullying campaign or campaign by letter by the Respondent against the Complainant.

Any disciplinary action they took relative to the Complainant was warranted and was carried out in accordance with their disciplinary procedure and fair procedures.

Recommendation:

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

All written and oral evidence presented to the WRC including documentation submitted at the hearing has been taken into account in coming to my recommendation.

1. I accept that the relationship between the Complainant and the former acting manager was the background to this dispute.
2. I note the former acting manager no longer works for the Respondent.
3. I accept the Respondent is in a difficult position because that person is not available to give evidence. I note that the current manager has only had the opportunity to carry out a file review to substantiate the Respondent’s position.
4. The hearing was the first occasion where the new manager and the Complainant met. I feel that this meeting did bring information to light on both sides.      
5. The Respondent at the hearing undertook to review the payment of the Claimant’s holiday pay and I trust this has been addressed at this stage.
6. I note that the Complainant wishes to have matters finalised once and for all, however I feel that it would be of benefit to the parties if the Complainant and Respondent engaged in the grievance and bullying and harassment procedures that form part of the Respondents employee handbook.
7. I am conscious of the length of time that the Complainant has been out of the workplace, suspended without pay since the 11^th July 2016. This should not have been allowed to continue for so long. I recommend that the Respondent lift the suspension and invite the Complainant back to work.
8. I recommend that the Respondent pay to the Complainant compensation of €2,000.00 for not dealing with the suspension in a proactive manner.
9. I recommend that the Respondent take a proactive step in engaging with the Complainant to assist her in utilising its grievance and bullying and harassment procedures. I would ask that both parties approach the process to find a workable outcome to the situation they find themselves in.      

I recommend the following course of action:

1. That the Respondent clearly outlines in writing details of all internal dispute mechanisms open to the Complainant for addressing her grievances including the bullying and harassment procedure and the timelines for same within 42 days from the date hereof.

2. That the Complainant exhaust all internal appeal and other dispute resolution mechanisms for addressing her grievances before considering further referral of same to the WRC under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969.

3. That the Respondent deals with any such internal appeals or grievances availed of by the Complainant in a sensitive and expeditious manner.

    

    

   Dated:4^th May 2017