Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Administrator

Institute of Technology

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-00017537-001

20/Feb/201820/Feb/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00017537-002

20/Feb/201820/Feb/2018

The Worker is employed since November 1999 and now holds the post of Part Time Grade 5 Assistant Staff Officer. She works 18.5 hours per week and is paid €22,164 per annum. She has appealed the outcome of a Grievance Investigation.

The last correspondence on this matter was received on 11th June 2018.

On the 29th June 2016 the Worker was asked to attend a meeting with the Registrar

of the College, who was her immediate superior. Prior to the Registrar’s appointment she had also worked in the same position. The purpose of the meeting she understood was to review the exam process which was part of the Registrar’s office duties. She went to the meeting with the intention of discussing any issues that may have arisen and to discuss any changes that needed to be made. Present was the Worker and the Registrar. From the start of the meeting she was concerned at the tone and manner used by the Registrar to outline his position and she was particularly concerned that he was reading from an email on the table to make his point. During this time, she clearly noticed that the name on the email referred to a work colleague not connected to the exam process in any manner. At this point she asked for a short break in the meeting to collect some documentation from her desk to try to defend herself from the unacceptable remarks that had been addressed to her. On her return from the meeting she clearly noticed that the name on top of the email which the Registrar had been reading from was scribbled out with a pen. On her return with the documentation she again rejected totally the comments made by the Registrar to her and again totally rejected the allegation made by him that she had exposed the institute to reputational damage during the exam process. As the meeting concluded she asked the Registrar for a copy of the email which he had read from at the meeting. To date she has not been provided with a copy of this email.

Since that meeting of the 29th June 2016 she has been transferred from her position in the Registrars

office. This transfer from a position which she was appointed to and had enjoyed has been difficult to accept and to explain to her work colleagues. While she understands her grade remains the same, in reality any transfer not requested from the immediate Registrar’s office appears to most work

colleagues as a form of demotion. At the time of her transfer which she did not request she was assured the transfer was for the reason that she had previous good experience in the position which she was to be transferred to, however the facts of the matter are that she is in a position which forever reason has very little work attached to it. In effect she was transferred from a busy office doing work which she was well capable of to an office where it appears that there is no real need for her to be there. She does not accept that she was transferred for restructuring staff purposes but believe that she was moved for other reasons. During her long term employment service with the college she has never refused to carry out any role assigned to her and until this event she maintained a perfect employment record without blemish. Furthermore, she believes that the work colleague whose name appeared on the email relied on at the meeting of the 29th June is in effect under a new role completing the work she previously had done.

When selecting the appropriate section on the attached WRC complaints form she selected Section F: Industrial Relations as it appears to be the relevant section in relation to her complaint.

She has always believed and have stated during the internal grievance process that the meeting she was invited to attend on the 29th June 2016 was in fact a disciplinary meeting which eventually resulted in my transfer from the position she held at that time.

She believes that her employer is in breach of their own Disciplinary Procedures, in that they failed to advise her as to the nature and content of the meeting of the 29s June 2016 or to advise her that under this procedure she was entitled to be accompanied by a work colleague or representative of her choice. She also believes that by refusing to allow her defend her good name against the allegations made by the Registrar contained in the email which he read from she has been denied the right to fully refute the allegations made against her.

Secondly, she believes that having requested a copy of the email which the Registrar read from at the meeting of the 29th June 2016 her employer has breached its own procedure on ICT Acceptable

Appropriate Usage Policy. She believes under this policy she is entitled to see the email relied on by the Registrar at the meeting on the 29th June 2016 which to date she has been refused access.

She also believes that her employer breeched its own policy when it forwarded my medical records and details to her neighbours address during a period of sick leave as a result of this issue which had

been approved by her own GP and confirmed by employer’s medical referee.

She enclosed some relevant documentation to support her case including the decision in two internal reviews. While she believes the first internal review was very limited she considers the second review to be an improvement in that it appears to accept her position on some points but yet fails to acknowledge her grievance. She still fails to understand how the findings of the second internal review broadly accepted that the term Risk of Reputational Damage was used in the

meeting of the 29th June 2016 and yet feels that this was a normal review process meeting. While I

understood that I was obliged to avail of the two internal reviews, at no time do I accept that my

grievance received an independent hearing.

Since the meeting of the 29th June 2016 and during the time of the two internal reviews she has

always stated that her intention is to clear her good name and to have the unfounded allegations

made against her by the Registrar withdrawn. She still believes that she is entitled to see the email relied upon by the Registrar at the meeting of the 29th June 2016 and she does not accept that the reason her medical records and details were sent to my neighbours address was because of a lack of ink in the printer for address labels.

She hopes the Workplace Relations Commission will be in a position to assist her with this complaint

as her workplace situation continues to be difficult as a result of the tone and content of the meeting. She was invited to attend on the 29th June 2016 and her subsequent transfer from the position she was appointed to.

She is seeking that there is an acknowledgement that the disciplinary hearing was not handled correctly, that the ICT policy was breached by the access to her personal data, that there was no proper protection for her personal data as caused by sending her personal information to a neighbour’s address and that she is seeking compensation for what she was put through.

The Employer stated that on 2nd March 2017 the new Registrar met with the Worker to discuss the possibility of her moving to a different part of the department, as it needed administrative support. The Registrar identified that he didn’t need administrative support himself. A number of discussions took place between them as she had voiced a number of concerns regarding the working environment in the student support services. He drew up a new job description but and asked her to consider it. On 15th March 2017 she agreed in writing to move. On 29th March 2017 she submitted a grievance to HR. A Department Head was appointed to deal with the grievance under Stage 1. They met on 11th April 2017. She set out a grievance that she was moved a result of a meeting that took place 9 months earlier in June 2016 with the registrar. She alleged that it was a disciplinary meeting and the Registrar had an email which outlined a number of complaints against her which he read out. As part of this investigation the Registrar denied that the meeting in June 2016 was a disciplinary one. No disciplinary action, no e-mails and no sanctions took place. It was a meeting between a manager and a staff member that could have gone better. The Registrar stated that he had no recollection of an e-mail. He didn’t use an email in preparation and may have jotted down some notes on paper, which would have been handwritten. He searched for an e-mail but could not find one. There had been a restructure in the team to provide a better administrative support for the Student Support Team. The Registrar denied that there was any link with the meeting in June 2016 and the subsequent move to Student Support Services some 9 months later. The Registrar was unclear whether the Worker had a complaint against him or the college and that he believed that she had placed more weight in her mind on what occurred at the meeting in June 2016. The Worker then confirmed that her grievance was against the Registrar and that the reason for the delay between June 2016 and March 2017 was caused by this matter “eating” at her. The findings of the Stage 1 investigation were that the meeting in June 2016 was not a disciplinary meeting. There was no evidence found that an email referred to by the Worker existed. The transfer occurred because of an overall restructure. The Worker’s grievances were not upheld. She appealed the outcome on June 2017. The Finance Manager carried out this appeal. The nub of the grievance centred on the email that was allegedly sent by another employee that she believed was used at the disciplinary hearing in June 2016. She felt that she was moved as a result of that meeting and the Registrar wanted another secretary. The Registrar confirmed to this investigation that the meeting in June 2016 was a normal meeting that could have gone better. He had no recollection of an email. The move to Student Support was because there was a need for administrative support. The Investigator requested the Registrar to search his email account for this email giving specific parameters such as dates and named individuals. The Investigator oversaw the search, no email was located. The Investigator found that the transfer occurred some 9 months after the meeting in June 2016. This transfer was required because of the need to support the administrative team in Student Support. The role was at the same grade, pay and conditions as the Complainant’s previous role. She had agreed to transfer. The meeting of 29th June 2016 was not a disciplinary hearing and there was no evidence that the transfer resulted from that meeting in 2016. No email referred to by the Worker was found to exist. The Worker’s grievances were not upheld. She then referred the complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission.

It is the Employer’s position that they have conducted two thorough investigations into the Worker’s grievances and she has not liked the outcome. She has always muted that she would bring a claim to the WRC and so she does not appear to have engaged fully with the internal process. The meeting in June 2016 was a normal meeting between a manager and a member of his team and not a disciplinary meeting. As a result of that meeting and several more some changes were made. No disciplinary sanction was issued to the Worker. The word “disciplinary” has never been mentioned in the context of that meeting in 2016. The Worker did not mention any concerns about the meeting of 29th June 2016 until March 2017, some 9 months later. This seemed to be in reaction to the Registrar’s suggestion of a transfer to Student Support, which was at the same grade, pay and conditions. She had stated that the alleged person whose name was on the e-mail that the Registrar read from in June 2016 took over her former role. This is not correct. The Registrar was given an additional position and a 0.3 whole time equivalent role was created to support him. This post was advertised and filled in September 2017. This claim should be dismissed.

I note that the Worker believes that this was a disciplinary hearing and that the College did not follow its own procedures.

I found no evidence that this was a disciplinary hearing. No outcome was communicated and no sanctions were issued.

I find that the transfer that the Worker alleges was a direct result of that meeting did not occur until some 9 months later.

I find that the Worker did not raise a grievance following that meeting.

I find that this was not a disciplinary hearing.

2) E-mail referred to in meeting of 29th June 2016 / Breach of ICT Policy.

For the above stated reasons, I recommend that this complaint should fail.

Appeal of a Grievance outcome