ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00008451

Complaint:

ActComplaint/Dispute Reference No.Date of Receipt Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 CA-00011508-001 23/05/2017   Date of Adjudication Hearing: 01/11/2017 Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.  

Background:

The complainant has a long running dispute with the respondent since 2010. He alleges that he was subject to bullying and harassment from another employee and the respondent failed to address his issue, resulting in a long period of sick leave and loss of earnings.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The complainant is employed by the respondent since 2000. He raised concerns regarding treatment of him by another employee alleging sustained bullying in 2010. He followed this up with further reports to the respondent. It is submitted that between 2010 and 2013 the complainant reported incidents of bullying to management on 16 separate occasions. He went on sick leave from 19th September 2013 to 2nd July 2015.   This resulted in a severe loss of earnings and a written warning and transfer. He has now returned to work and is happy to work in the area he was reassigned to, and he is not currently subject to unacceptable behaviour.   However, he feels the company let him down by never pursuing the complaints he made and left him with no alternative but to go on sick leave. The complainant further contends that despite bringing his complaints to management on many occasions and having witnesses to some incidents, management did not fully or properly investigate his issues, thereby leaving him in a position where he was fearful of returning to work from sick leave.  

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

A detailed summary of events and meetings from 2010 to 2014 was submitted. In summary, there were complaints and counter complaints received by the respondent from the complainant and his work colleague in 2010.   Attempts were made to have the matters resolved between the parties and good relationships under dignity at work guidelines observed.   The complainant commenced a lengthy period of sick leave on 19th November 2012 (211 days). The respondent’s Attendance Support Management Process was put in place in March 2013. The respondent reminded the complainant by letter of 4 June 2013 that there was no suggestion of culpability on the complainant’s part and that a return to work date should be discussed. In June 2013 the complainant returned to work. On 19 September 2013 the complainant again commenced sick leave.   He was subjected to the disciplinary process for non attendance, which resulted in a final written warning, reduced to a 2nd level warning (now off record due to time).     It is argued that the respondent did all it could to investigate the complainant’s complaints, tried to get the parties to work together and offered mediation. An investigation in 2013 into allegations made by the complainant could not be substantiated. In all the circumstances, the respondent submits the company could not be found culpable.

Recommendation :  The complainant’s evidence is that he sought to have his complaint of bullying and harassment dealt with by Management on a number of occasions between 2010 and 2013. I note that the disciplinary process in respect of attendance was invoked by the respondent and the complainant’s evidence is that he sought unsuccessfully to explain that his absence was due to bullying and harassment. At that stage, perhaps the more appropriate course would have been for the respondent to have instigated a full formal investigation into the claims, with agreed terms of reference. However, in this case, I accept the respondent’s bona fides in that the HR Manager did try to investigate matters as best he could. I also note that the complainant no longer has to work with the other party. In these circumstances I recommend that a line be drawn under this dispute and that due to the protracted nature of the dispute, the respondent offer to the complainant the compensatory sum of €5,000 in final settlement.    

Dated:   18/01/2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham