Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

General Operative

Public Body

Representatives

Andrea Cleere SIPTU

William Toomes

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00019653-001

08/06/2018

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

CA-00019653-002

08/06/2018

The Complainant was moved location due to an ongoing harassment claim he had against his supervisor. The Complainant was then moved back again to the location where he felt was an unsafe environment. He contends that there was a breach of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act.   He further requests that the Respondent provide a safe working environment for him. For a long period of time, the Complainant was experiencing ongoing difficulties from the treatment he had been subjected to from his supervisor. He was ignored for call outs and work was distributed in an uneven manner. In June 2017 he requested information regarding call outs but received no reply. In September 2017, with the suggestion and agreement of two managers, the complainant moved indoors and took on the duties of multi task attendant. Then suddenly in December 2017 he was told to return immediately to the outdoors position. He was shocked and distressed at the prospect of returning to the same stressful situation in which he had been previously and despite his requests and requests from his union, that he stay in his indoors position, this was denied. Mediation was being arranged between the complainant and the supervisor when a serious incident occurred. The Area Foreman drove a van at the complainant and almost knocked him down.     The Complainant was out of work for a number of weeks but was able to return following the other person’s removal from the workplace as per communication from management in August 2018. It is submitted that the Complainant has experienced severe stress and anxiety and has been on anti-depressant medication as a result of the treatment he experienced. He is aggrieved that he tried to remedy and resolve the issues and that having moved him, management then blocked his transfer. The Complainant wants to work in a safe environment free from aggressive, intimidating and isolating treatment.

Following representations from the Complainant to the Maintenance Manager about difficulties he was having with his direct line manager, the Complainant was transferred from his position to that of Multi task Attendant. This decision, however was taken without HR input and the particular managers did not have the authority to make such a decision. The role of Multi Task Attendant carries a higher pay scale and as such is a promotional rate. The Complainant returned to his substantive post on instruction of the Head of Human Resources. In relation to the complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, it is submitted that there was no breach as the Complainant’s terms were not permanently changed.   Concession of this claim would have far reaching implications for the promotion procedures in the Respondent’s employment.

CA-00019653-001 Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994

As the Complainant’s terms and conditions of employment were temporarily altered, I do not find the complaint to be well founded.

CA-00019653-002   Industrial Relations Act 1969

I note that in the hearing, the Respondent was not willing to address the serious incident which is alleged to have occurred on 16th June 2018 as this allegedly occurred after the current complaints here were received (8th June 2018). I note that this ongoing issue will take some time to come to conclusion.     The Complainant is entitled to work in a safe environment and the Respondent has a duty of care to ensure that this remains the case. I note that the Complainant was transferred by managers who did have not the requisite authority to approve such transfer. It is regrettable that this solution which gave some relief to the Complainant was not allowed to stand even on a temporary basis. However, I cannot recommend that the established process of promotional appointments be bypassed, as to do so might give rise to repercussive claims.

I note that the Complainant did not apply formally for Multi Task Attendant positions as they were publicised and I recommend that he do so in the future when they arise.      In the meantime, the Respondent should explore with the Complainant and his union representative possible alternatives in the event that he may be exposed to an unsafe environment in the foreseeable future.   I find that as the Complainant’s request for information regarding call outs was not responded to and as he was the unfortunate victim of management error in the transfer situation, he should be compensated in the sum of €2,000.

I recommend that the Respondent should explore with the Complainant and his union representative possible alternatives in the event that he may be exposed to an unsafe environment in the foreseeable future. I find that as the Complainant’s request for information regarding call outs was not responded to and as he was the unfortunate victim of management error in the transfer situation, he should be compensated in the sum of €2,000.