Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Caretaker/groundsman

Country Estate

Representatives

Pre-hearing: Muldowney Solicitors

Day 1: Michael Monahan Solicitors

Day 2 and 3: Self

Michelle Dolan

Groarke & Partners Solicitors

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-00011996-001

20/06/2017

The background to this case was an allegation that the Claimant on or about the 10th of April 2016 disclosed to an external contractor working on the Estate grounds that one of the directors of the company takes backhanders and the same person takes brown envelopes.

The Respondent commenced an investigation into these complaints in June 2016 and an external investigator was appointed in August 2016. The investigator’s report issued on the 6th of April 2017.

The complaint was lodged with the WRC on the 20th of June 2017.

The Complainant felt stressed, bullied and harassed by the whole episode.   He felt badly treated by the Respondent.

The Complainant’s position that there was no attempt to address the matter informally or privately. The Complainant submitted that he had a grievance against the external contractor.    

The Complainant’s case was that there was a conflict of interest in the choosing of the external investigator and had issues with the fact that one of his witness statements was not accepted by the external investigator.

The statement was not submitted to the investigator due to a possible communication error with her solicitor.

The Claimant submitted that I should set aside the investigator’s report.

The findings and conclusion of the external investigator were that the Complainant did make negative remarks about the Board Director of the Respondent and that on the balance of probabilities the words quoted above were used and they were said out of spite and not in a considered way.

The investigator recommended that the Respondent start a workplace disciplinary procedure.

The Respondent has taken no action against the Claimant following the issue of the investigator’s report and have held matters in abeyance pending the outcome of this referral.

The Respondent disputed any conflict of interest on the part of the external investigator.

The internal procedures needed to be followed before the Claimant had any dispute to bring before the WRC.

I have concluded my investigation into this dispute. I have given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.

I recognise the significance of the matters underlying the dispute to both sides.

Workplace bullying as set out in paragraph 5 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 (Code of Practice detailing Procedures for Addressing Bullying in the Workplace) (Declaration) Order 2002 (S.I. No. 17/2002) : ‘Workplace Bullying is repeated inappropriate behaviour, direct or indirect, whether verbal, physical or otherwise, conducted by one or more persons against another or others, at the place of work and/or in the course of employment, which could reasonably be regarded as undermining the individual’s right to dignity at work. An isolated incident of the behaviour described in this definition may be an affront to dignity at work but, as a once off incident, is not considered to be bullying.

I cannot find evidence establishing objectively what could be reasonably be regarded as undermining the plaintiff’s right to dignity at work. The Respondent engaged an external investigator who carried out a detailed investigation. A fair and impartial investigation was carried out. All details of same were provided to the Claimant.

In addition to the above, as the investigation report has not been acted up by the Respondent, the Claimant has made a premature application for adjudication the WRC without exhausting the internal procedures. The internal procedures must be exhausted and I would strongly urge that both sides adopt a pragmatic approach to implementing them.

I recommend that the Complainant make his submissions arising from the external investigators report of the 10th of April 2017 to the Respondent. If the case moves to the next stage of the internal procedures, he can provide his co-worker’s statement to the Respondent.

The alleged incident at the centre of this referral took place over two years and a half years ago.  

I do not find that the Claimant was bullied by the Respondent in engaging in an external investigation as to what was allegedly said by the Claimant in June 2016.

I recommend that both parties work to finalise the internal procedures without further delay.

Industrial Relations. Bullying and harassment.