ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00005483

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

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 01/02/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Shay Henry

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 following the referral of the complaint) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

The complainant commenced work with the respondent on 7^th July 2014 as an administrator. Her complaints are as follows;

She was struck by the Regional President. This incident took place on 3^rd January 2016 during a training day. The incident was the subject of an unsatisfactory investigation as the written response of the Regional President was not made available to the complainant because she had taken the case under the Grievance Procedure rather than the Dignity at Work Procedure.

Shortly after she complained about the striking incident the complainant’s computer was used by another person to view pornographic content.

The employer failed to provide her with a contract of employment in a timely fashion.

She was isolated following the move of premises to the current location. Her computer was on a table up against the wall in the new premises while a colleague’s was in pristine condition set up properly. She was assured it was an oversight at the time. There was no investigation as to the reason.

The employer failed to provide her with training in dealing with the public leaving her vulnerable to abusive and threatening behaviour. On two occasions she was confronted by members of the public in a threatening manner.

She had wages deducted for a prolonged period of time forcing her to ask for the outstanding amount to be paid on a weekly basis thereby demeaning her on an ongoing basis.

The Regional President abused her power by subjecting her to the above issues and also in behaving in an unprofessional manner in the language used concerning another volunteer.

The complainant has been off work since February 16 due to stress and the respondent, in light of the above, should have continued to pay her and to pay for her medical bills.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

The respondent initially retained the complainant on a Job Bridge scheme in July 2014 as an administrator. She was subsequently employed on a 2 year fixed term contract commencing 1 June 2015. In February 2016 the Claimant contacted her line manager requested a meeting regarding the alleged assault. At the same time she raised concerns regarding the office move. A meeting was arranged between the claimant and the Regional President during which the latter apologised for the incident and the complainant indicated that she did not wish to pursue the matter further. She subsequently went on sick leave.

The complainant’s computer at work was accessed by the child of an employee who viewed pornography. The matter was investigated by the respondent and the IT policy was again brought to the attention of all staff, in particular regarding the sharing of passwords, to ensure that there was no recurrence of incidents of this type. The respondent confirmed to the complainant that there was no fault attached to her in relation to the incident. The respondent continued to liaise with the complainant while she was on sick leave and referred her to the Employee Assistance Programme. During this time the claimant sought a copy of her contract and various policies. Due to an oversight the claimant had not been provided with a contract when she had moved from the Job Bridge scheme to become an employee of the respondent. A contract was drafted and given to her together with the policies requested.

A written complaint was received from the complainant on 18^th March outlining her issues. On 10 May 2016 a formal grievance form was lodged by the complainant. The grievance meeting took place on 1 July. The only grievance not dealt with was the alleged assault because that had been referred to the Gardai. None of the other grievances were upheld. An appeal was conducted on 7 September and there was no change to the original decision.

From 24 August on the respondent liaised with the complainant’s representative in order to identify a suitable person to investigate the assault complaint and the appropriate terms of reference for the investigation. The investigation report issued on 17^th October and the grievance was not upheld.

The deductions from wages were due to an issue with Revenue and not through any negligence on the part of the respondent.

Issues of safety are dealt with in the Health and Safety statement and training is provided to those employees dealing with the public. The complainant is not dealing with the public.

Recommendation:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires me to make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

Conclusions:

Having examined the evidence presented at the hearing I am satisfied that the complaints which were the subject of a hearing on 1 July and an appeal on 7 September were dealt with by the respondent in a proper manner and the complainant was appropriately represented on both occasions. In relation to the investigation of the alleged assault I note that the respondent had the benefit of professional advice and representation. At the hearing the complainant emphasised the problem with the investigation was that it was taken under the wrong procedure and that as a result the complainant was not furnished with the other party’s written submission. In addition, the complainant said that the respondent could have requested witnesses to attend. I have read the investigator’s report and note that the investigator has stated that the complainant did not want to nominate anyone as witness, and secondly, that neither party opted to make a written statement. It would not have been possible therefore to furnish the complainant with any such statement.

Recommendation:

Having examined the evidence at the hearing I do not find any compelling evidence to uphold the complaint.

Dated: 02/05/2017