ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00006983
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Programme administrator | Administrator of a GP training unit |
Complaint(s):
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-00009486-001 | 01/02/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 12/06/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marguerite Buckley
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 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.
Background:
The Complainant lodged her complaint with Workplace Relations on the 1st of February 2017. She had a trade dispute that she wished to be investigated with the Respondent. She wished for the retraction of damaging correspondence from the Respondent and the resolution of the contents therein. She retired from employment with the Respondent in April 2017. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was an employee of the Respondent and its predecessors from 1978. Her final position was that of a Grade 6 administrator in the GP training unit.
During the last twenty one months of her employment, the Complainant experienced significant levels of stress arising from an incident which occurred on the 20th of July 2015. The Complainant retired before she would have full forty years of service as a result of the hurt and stress experienced following this incident.
On the 28th of July 2015 the Complainant received a phone call from her line manager requesting that she attend a meeting giving her fifteen minutes notice. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the placing of supports for the Complainant’s role. When she attended at the meeting a HR specialist was in attendance and the Complainant felt that this escalated the meeting into something beyond a routine informal operation discussion. She described the meeting as being an ambush. She was completely taken aback by the implications that her work was not up to scratch as was emotionally hurt by same.
On the 30th of July 2015 the Complainant outlined her concerns to the chief officer. She received a reply in September 2015 from the acting general manager. A meeting was convened in December 2015 to discuss the matter. At that meeting there was a possibility of an apology from the parties in attendance at the July 2015 meeting was “floated”. However correspondence that issued following the meeting did not reflect same. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent’s position was that the meeting in June 2015 was of an informal nature to discuss perceived work difficulties that had been raised by the Complainant.
Their position was that the interaction with the Complainant was at all times professional. Neither party at the meeting were of the opinion they had anything to apologise for.
The Complainant was not satisfied with any of the correspondence which issued after the December 2015 meeting. This stated that there was no intention to ever cause offence and if offence was taken, that it was regrettable. This was the full extent of what the parties were prepared to concede. This was confirmed to the Complainant in three written communications. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I have reviewed the submissions both in written form and the evidence given to me at the hearing. It is unfortunate that the Complainant felt that she had to resign early because of what happened at the July 2015 meeting.
It is clear from reviewing the evidence; there was a breakdown in the working relationship between the Complainant and her line manager. This is regrettable. It would seem that the purpose of the meeting on the 28th of July 2015 was to offer support to the Complainant. A HR specialist was to attend the meeting. The Complainant knew that the HR specialist would be in attendance. By the Complainant’s own email of the 30th of July 2015 she stated that her line manager had apologised for an earlier telephone call.
The Complainant had an issue with the fact she was only given fifteen minutes notice of the meeting. She said she was also unsure as to what the purpose of the meeting was. I feel this is an area that needs to be improved upon. There seemed to be no huge urgency for the meeting and more notice should have been given. The Claimant should also have been provided with an agenda as to what the meeting was to be about, so as to allow her to prepare for the meeting.
The outcome of the meeting would have probably been different if this had occurred.
However, I appreciate the Respondent intended the meeting to be an informal meeting for the support of the Complainant.
I note that the Respondent confirmed in writing that there was no intention on the part of the line manager, the HR specialist or the acting general manager to cause offence to the Complainant. This must be seen as an effort to resolve matters and not rejected.
In any interpersonal disputes, there must be willingness on both sides to resolve the matter. |
Decision:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I recommend that in so far as practicable, the Respondent review its procedures for informal meetings and set guidelines for giving adequate notice to attendees and an agenda of what the meeting is in relation to.. |
Dated: 7/11/17
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marguerite Buckley
Key Words:
Industrial relations + informal meeting+ adequate notice+agenda |