Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Chef

A Healthcare Provider

Representatives

SIPTU

Respondent

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-00007594-001

13/10/2016

The respondent employs the complainant as a Chef Grade 1. She submitted a complaint against her colleague under “Dignity at Work” policy in March 2014 through her Trade Union. The dispute concerns the conduct and outcome of the investigation which eventually ensued. The parties made oral and written submission to the hearing. Supplementary written submission was received from the complainant and commented upon by the respondent post hearing.

The complainant submits that she brought a complaint of bullying against a work colleague which came to a head, on the 3rd of November 2014. She left work in tears on the day and subsequently was out of work for a protracted period. She contends that “both the processing of her complaint and the subsequent findings of the investigation panel are fundamentally flawed.” During the early part of her absence she explained the nature of her illness and the behaviours which had precipitated it to her manager, who made informal and unsuccessful attempts to ameliorate the matter. She sought and received the assistance of her trade union in mid-December 2014. The formal complaint was lodged in early March 2015 however the final report did not issue until late December of that year. Furthermore, it is submitted that the investigation team erred in that it failed to exhaust the process in advance of issuing the report. In essence the respondent failed to properly discharge its responsibility towards the complainant in that it failed to ensure a timely response to her initial complaints, continued to deploy her in the same area on return from her absence and accepted a flawed report. She seeks redress for loss accrued, the restoration of sick pay entitlement and protection from the prospect of workplace bullying.

The respondent submits that its HR department received a formal complaint of bullying from the complainant on the 26th of March 2015. There had been engagement between the complainant’s trade union and the respondent concerning issues raised by her hitherto. Preliminary screening of the complaint was undertaken. A further complaint (the complaint which was the subject of the investigation) was received on the 5th of May 2015 and a further screening was undertaken. The trade union responded requesting a formal investigation of the complaint on the 18th inst. The investigation process began on the 18th of June and all the parties engaged fully. Following the circulation of the “preliminary conclusions” and request for any further input the trade union in correspondence challenged the process without providing detail. The final report issued on the 21st of December 2015. The complainant was not satisfied with the outcome and referred the matter to the WRC in early 2016 without having used the local appeals mechanism. Attempts were made during 2016 to assist at arriving at a closure but the complainant was not satisfied with those efforts. The respondent has applied its policy and procedure fairly in this case leading to a finding which was unsatisfactory to the complainant.

It is not my function to conduct or re-run the investigation of the allegation of bullying in this case. I can comment as to whether in my opinion and in all the circumstances presented and on the balance of probability it was reasonable for the investigation to find as it did. In doing so I must have regard also to the entitlement of the alleged aggressor to his/her good name. I am satisfied that the conclusion arrived at in the instant case was reasonable.

I note that these matters very often take an inordinate time to conclude but do not feel that such was the case here as it relates to the triggering of the formal part of the process.

With regard to, the requirement that the complainant continue to work in the same area post period of absence to February 2015 I am of the opinion that the respondent had no other option in the absence of either a specific request and/or an investigatory conclusion of bullying at that time.

I hereby recommend that the parties (complainant, respondent and alleged aggressor in this case) would engage in a three-way workplace conflict process to support/enable them to conclude the matter on a mutually satisfactory basis.