Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Fork Truck Driver

A Food Processor

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-00008801-002

15/12/2016

The complainant is employed as a loader fork truck driver since May of 2000. The herein complaint relates to his dis-satisfaction with the respondent’s conduct of a complaint of bullying and the fact the alleged unsatisfactory nature thereof. It was explained to the complainant that it was not the function of the WRC to conduct investigations into allegations of workplace bullying other than to review the process and report and make recommendation in the matter. The parties agreed to explore their differences through mediation as a possible solution. The hearing was adjourned to facilitate the initiative. In the event the effort (April 2017) stalled at the first hurdle viz. the appointment of the HR consultant as the mediator. The complainant objected to the appointment and the initiative was discontinued. The adjourned hearing was rescheduled for December 2017. In the interim the disciplinary process was instigated against the complainant beginning in June and concluding in August of the same year. He was issued with a written warning. The parties made oral submission to the hearing.

The complainant relied upon his statement as provided in his application for intervention by the WRC. The statement referred to the appointment of a new supervisor in 2014 and subsequent events which led to a complaint of bullying against the supervisor. An external HR consultant was appointed to investigate the matter. No investigation report issued other than an email from the MD informing the complainant that the investigation had concluded and that there was no evidence of bullying. It was found that the supervisor had used bad language against him and that he had blocked him from clocking out on one occasion. The supervisor had received a verbal warning in this regard. Additionally, the MD had informed him that overtime was compulsory and he sought copy of his original contract. A new contract was provided which made no reference to compulsory overtime or hours of work. The date of commencement was incorrect.

The respondent submitted that it had attempted to deal with these matters without success. There were operational and performance issues which were of concern.

It appears to me that the parties to this contract fail to recognise that there is a duty of fidelity implied with that contract which requires both parties to act in a manner which is reasonable when it comes to the operation of that contract. It is not reasonable to allow the type of relationship which appears to exist between the supervisor and the complainant to continue. The respondent must make it clear as to what is required of both and set about ensuring that it’s requirement is met. It is not reasonable to provide the result of an investigation of bullying in an email in the absence of an investigation report. Nor is it reasonable to refuse to do overtime in the absence of a compulsory clause in the contract, or because a complaint of bullying is found to be not well founded. It is not reasonable to demur where a HR consultant has been appointed to conduct a mediation and then complain that he has represented the company during these proceedings. Virtually all external third parties bill companies for their services in IR matters.

I recommend that the parties engage directly having regard to the contract which governs their obligations and interest as it relates to the workplace with a view to arriving at an understanding of how all sides should behave in the future.