Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Postal Operative

Postal Company

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-00009622-001

09/02/2017

The Worker is employed as a Postal Operative since 2007.   She is paid €600 per week. She has claimed that her manager opened a private   letter addressed to her without her permission.

Summary of Worker’s Case:

There have been longstanding industrial relations   difficulties in this depot, which has led to a toxic atmosphere.   Relationships between local management and staff deteriorated to such an   extent that a dispute was almost inevitable. Meetings between the union   representatives and management have brought about an improvement in   relations. A mechanism was agreed to   deal with matters of concern. Any outstanding matters would then be referred   to the WRC. This case arises from this   process.

There was a “vacant duty” competition held across the city   services. The Worker applied for this post. Some weeks later she was written   to advising that she had been successful. As with policy she had five days to   make up her mind whether she would accept it. She felt under pressure to make   up her mind. Her manager constantly harangued her to fill in the form of   acknowledgement. She had some concerns about the safety of one of the duties   and was seeking clarification on this. It came to her attention that the   letter sent to her had been opened by her manager and was handed to her. This   allowed him to harangue her. She raised her concern with her representative   who in turn raised it with management. A meeting was held at regional level   but the company put forward explanations that the letter had opened as it was   handed to her and that she had tippexed out her acceptance of the duty. Instead of the   company accepting her position that made her feel that she had done something   wrong. The company’s report put it that it was one person’s word against   another. Given that the manager knew the contents of the letter then it is   clear that he did open it. She is seeking an apology for having her mail   addressed to her opened without her permission.

It is accepted that the industrial relations environment   was challenging and verging on being terminally broken. Relations between   management and some staff were strained.

The HR Manager invited the Worker to a meeting upon   receipt of her complaint. The HR Manager carried out an investigation and her   manager stated that he had not opened the letter but had given it to her   unopened. She opened the letter in front of him and they spoke for a few   minutes and he took away the envelope to scan the bar code. She signed the   letter and handed it back to him to be returned. Later she asked for the   letter to be returned to her as she wanted time to consider her decision. He   then opened the letter and tippexed out the acceptance and handed it to her.   He photocopied the sheet as the tippex was visible.

She stated that she held on to the letter for a few days   before she signed it and returned it. She stated that she hadn’t changed   anything on the form.

The HR Manager found that the form was a photocopy and   bore indications of having been tippexed. The form was signed and dated on   the date it was received not three days later as asserted by the Worker. The   company accepted the manager’s explanation. The outcome of this investigation   was conveyed to the Worker and her representative.

I note the history of bad relations between management and   workers in this depot.

I note the efforts of both sides to address this problem.

I note that progress has been made in this regard.

I note the conflict of evidence in this case.

I note the investigation findings of management’s   investigation.

On the balance of probability I find the Employer’s   explanation more credible.

Therefore I accept their version of events.