ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00002129
Dispute for Resolution:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 | CA-00002917-001 | 29/02/2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 21/06/2016
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Tierney
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, and Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Attendance at Hearing:
Representative |
|
|
Anonomised Parties | An Employee | A Transport Company |
Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:
The Complainant submitted that “In 03.07.2015 I made complaint according to management’s xenophobic and bully behaviour. In document I presented situations and potentially witness of it. Complaint was not properly investigated (according to “Dignity & Respect at work in (the respondent)” policy, pt. 10 (page 22)). I received basic information only, that procedure was terminated. So called "investigation" was not in accordance with the formal procedure set out in “Dignity & Respect at work in (the respondent)” policy, pt. 9 (page 20 & 21). For example: 1. No independent investigation was initiated. 2. Does not include any conclusions and evidence reached by the complainant. I sent information to my employer, called "appeal" (29.07.2015), but I did not receive any answer. SIPTU Rep. been informed and received full documentation of process stated above.” |
Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:
In November 2014 the Respondent spoke with the Claimant in connection with three customer complaints alleging driver behaviour and rudeness. On 8 January 2015 there were three further similar complaints. During the course of discussion, the Claimant stated that Irish people were being racist because of the complaints. He was advised that if he felt that way he should report it.
On 20 January 2015 he had to be spoken to again based on further similar complaints. On 3 February he had to be spoked to again based on similar complaints. He was later spoken to for not wearing his uniform.
The Respondents investigated the Claimant’s complaints of racist and could find no pattern of racism in the complaint rather it was his attitude that gave e rise to them.
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I have considered the statements and submission made by the parties. I note that the level of customer complaints received in relation to the Claimant is not replicated with other drivers in his workplace regardless of nationality. There are several nationalities in the Claimant workplace.
From the evidence presented by the Claimant I cannot detect any pattern of racism. I do not find the claim well founded and it fails.
Dated: 12th July 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Tierney