Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Canteen Worker

Laundry Service Provider

Representatives

Ger Malone, SIPTU

John Farrell, IBEC

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-00009576-001

07/02/2017

The complainant is employed in the staff canteen of the respondent’s premises. The respondent operates a large scale laundry service.   The complainant has worked in the canteen since September 2002. In early 2015 the complainant made informal complaints in relation to a supervisor which was later escalated to a formal complaint. This dispute is in relation to the claim by the complainant that management failed to adequately deal with the issue and that their procedures in this regard were flawed.

The complainant made a number of informal complaints of bullying against a supervisor in early 2015.

In August 2015, when nothing had been done in relation to these complaints, the complainant made a formal complaint of bullying against the supervisor to the General Manager.

Management carried out an investigation but the manner in which it was conducted was flawed and caused the complainant distress.

During this time there were ongoing incidents involving the complainant and the supervisor. In December the complainant again wrote to management about these issues.

The matters remained unresolved and the complainant wrote to the Managing Director in April 2016.   Two meetings took place and in June 2016 the General Manager issued an outcome letter which was unacceptable to the complainant.

The investigation was flawed as the evidence was not investigated. The respondent failed to follow their own procedures. By their failures management were protecting the perpetrator and the company.

This approach heightened the complainant’s distress and upset and failed to protect her right to dignity at work.

Management should withdraw the outcome letter and compensate the complainant for the distress caused to her.

The respondent investigated the complaints. The parties disputed each others’ accounts.

The respondent was unable to find independent witnesses to confirm the complainant’s version of events.

The respondent attempted to resolve matters through an internal mediation process but this did not succeed.

The respondent issued a letter to the supervisor drawing his attention to the harassment / bullying reference in the company handbook.

In the absence of witnesses the respondent could not take the matter further.

Any delays were due to the respondent going through a period of Examinership resulting in major changes in the management structure.

Both the complainant and the supervisor are employees of good standing with the respondent. It would appear that they had been on friendly terms prior to these issues commencing. The complainant works in the staff canteen on a full-time basis and has been employed since 2002.

The complainant states that in 2014 the supervisor in question indulged in behaviour in the canteen, some of which was directed against her, which she found objectionable and which she complained to him about. These actions included pushing her food away from her at the table, forcibly moving chairs so that they hit her, deliberately spilling tea and breaking the rules as regards the use of milk. The complainant had spoken about these matters to the Production Manager but nothing had been done. In August 2015 the complainant wrote to the General Manager to complain about the supervisor and the fact that nothing had been done about the issue. Two days later the General Manager convened a meeting with the complainant to discuss the matter. It was stated that the matter would be dealt with under the company’s formal complaint policy and the complainant agreed to this.   The various incidents were gone through and the complainant gave the names of possible witnesses. The company’s next steps were agreed.

About a week later the General Manager had meetings with three witnesses. The General Manager then convened another meeting with the complainant which took place about five weeks later. At that meeting the GM said that none of the witnesses could validate her claims and that made it difficult to prove her case. He suggested a hybrid procedure, being a mix between formal and informal processes including a 3 – way conversation and asked the complainant to think about it. The GM also stated that they still had to interview the supervisor.   The complainant said that she would make a decision dependent on the outcome of the meeting between the GM and the supervisor. That meeting took place approx. a week later. The GM went through the complaint and asked the supervisor “if it held any merit”. The supervisor denied any wrongdoing and said he would be willing to resolve this complaint via an informal meeting.

On 22 October 2015 the complainant was called to a meeting without notice and was unable to arrange for representation. The GM presided and the supervisor was present. The GM stated that the purpose of the meeting was to resolve matters. The complainant soon became upset by the behaviour of the supervisor and the meeting had to be stopped. The complainant states that the Production Manager suggested that it would be better for her to move forward as she had no witnesses.

During the following weeks there were further incidents between the complainant and the supervisor.   The complainant wrote to the Production Manager in early December outlining what had occurred and stating her dissatisfaction with the approach adopted by management to all these matters.   The GM had a meeting with the complainant some days later stating that management believed matters had improved between the parties. The complainant disagreed with this assessment and requested that the matter be dealt with.

In the background the respondent company was facing severe difficulties regarding its future and entered into a period where it was placed into examinership and underwent major re-structuring in order to ensure its survival. This resulted in changes in the management of the company.

In April 2016 the complainant wrote to the Managing Director reiterating her dissatisfaction at the treatment of her complaints and requesting her personnel file. Two meetings took place in early May with new members of management and on 3 June 2016 the Chief Operating Officer issued a letter of outcome. This letter stated that a mutually agreed outcome between the parties could not be reached and as there were no witnesses the company was unable to take the matter further. The letter went on to state that the supervisor had been informed that any behaviour such as has been alleged was unacceptable and could be subject to the Disciplinary Process if proven. The letter ended by apologising for the delay and noting that some deficiencies in company procedures had been highlighted. The complainant was unhappy with this outcome and therefore referred the dispute to the WRC.

The respondent has a written policy dealing with harassment / bullying including a formal procedure in this regard. At the meeting in August 2015 the complainant opted to take the formal route as she felt nothing had been done by management when she had raised issues prior to that. It is clear that management did not adhere to their own procedures as, after interviewing witnesses and prior to speaking with the person against whom the complaints were made, they convened another meeting with the complainant to advise her that her allegations could not be validated by the witnesses and suggested a hybrid approach regarding these matters. The minutes of the meeting with the supervisor indicate that he was told of the complaints and asked if there was any merit in them.   Having said there was not it was indicated that he was willing to go down the informal route even though the complainant had not agreed to this. Management for some reason formed the opinion that matters between the parties had improved and did not attempt to finalise the issue.

It is accepted that the organisation was going through troubled times at this point and that there were question marks over it’s very existence. Some of the management personnel involved in this case subsequently left the company as part of the resultant reorganisation. This background probably contributed to the fact that nothing was done with regard to the matter until the complainant raised the issue in April 2016. This delay, however, was again in conflict with the procedure. The reorganisation also resulted in the final outcome being decided by persons who had not been part of the original procedure.

For all of the above reasons I accept the complainant’s contention that the process was flawed.   Indeed the final outcome letter from the Chief Operating Officer mentions deficiencies in procedures and apologises for delays in finalising matters. It also states that the respondent has plans to rectify these matters in the future. In order to address these issues I recommend that an appropriate, independent third party be appointed by the respondent in order to engage with the complainant and management with a view to finding a method of bringing resolution and closure to this dispute and to ensure that members of management are adequately trained and skilled in the application and operation of the company’s Harassment / Bullying Procedure.