Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Senior Accountant

An IT Company

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00010301-001

19/03/2017

The complainant commenced employment with the respondent on the 14th November 2016. Her role was Financial Accountant and she was paid €60,000 per annum. She resigned by email of the 14th March 2017 and was on sick leave from the 27th March 2017. Her employment ended on the 14th April 2017.

In the complaint form, the complainant outlines that she emailed the Finance Director on the 6th February 2017 to report almost-daily bullying by the Financial Controller. She asked for HR to be involved. They met on the 21st February 2017 and he indicated he would get HR involved. The complaint related to the Financial Controller, who made snide remarks and criticised the complainant. She had been thrown in at the deep end in the role and the Financial Controller had withheld information to prevent the complainant from doing her job. She criticised the complainant for her absences, even though they were approved annual leave. The manager also criticised the complainant for going home sick.

The complainant outlined that she had raised a bullying complaint with the Finance Director on the 6th February 2017. He promised to engage the HR. The complainant had a one-to-one meeting with the Finance Director on the 21st February 2017. It took longer than the 7 days set out in the policy for this meeting to happen. The Finance Director stated that there was no need to engage HR. The complainant resigned on the 14th March 2017 and ended her employment on the 14th April 2017. She lodged this dispute on the 19th March 2017. While the respondent later offered to investigate her complaint, it was then too late. She had to seek professional counselling as she had been bullied. She referred to her medical certificate of the 3rd April 2017 that specifically refers to work-related stress. The respondent had only engaged HR on the 14th March 2017 but it was already too late. In respect of the minutes of the meeting with the Finance Director, she said that they were inaccurate and incomplete, for example they had not discussed whether she had limited pay preparation experience. She had also said at the meeting that she would accept criticism, but the issue here was bullying. The agreement was that they would meet again later that day and she had wished for an amicable outcome.

The complainant said that on the 21st February 2017, the Finance Director said that there was no need to engage HR. He also said that someone else had complained about the Financial Controller. There were no meetings between her and both the Finance Director and the Financial Controller, and no one-to-one meeting between them. After this, she waited on the Finance Director to revert to her, but her issues were never addressed. The complainant said that was now upskilling and had taken some personal time off.

In respect of the bullying, the complainant said that this was done when no one else was around. It focused on her competency and her lack of knowledge. The Financial Controller withheld information preventing the complainant from resolving problems. She had limited training in a software package and only became aware of the level of errors at the end of the month. She had to work off the previous month’s information. She asked the Finance Manager to stop criticising her and did so before escalating the matter. She had been told that she had two weeks to pull her socks up or her job would be in danger.

The complainant said that her sole reason of bringing this dispute was that no one would have to go through such an experience again. She held no animosity for the Financial Controller, the Finance Director or the respondent. She wanted to move on and did not hold a grudge. The respondent had to take complaints seriously. She had to rely on her family and professional help to cope, and she had anxiety attacks. The IT package used by the respondent was bespoke and not widely used. This was the source of most of her errors. In respect of her recruitment, the complainant said that she had been interviewed on several occasions and her salary had been in mid-range of what a senior accountant could expect. After she resigned, the complainant received no acknowledgement from the respondent. The Financial Controller had laughed in her face and this was unprofessional. There was no point being so malicious. In reply to the respondent, the complainant said that she had not walked out of the performance review meeting of the 6th February 2017. It ended normally. She was sorry that the employment relationship had ended in this way and she had wished for an amicable resolution.

The respondent outlined that the complainant started on the 14th November 2016 and she had been placed on the top of the pay scale as they sought to recruit someone who could hit the ground running. It became apparent very fast that there were errors in the complainant’s work. The respondent submitted that there were no other complaints against the Financial Controller. The respondent had given a huge amount of support to the complainant, including when the complainant emailed regarding her sister. The Dignity at Work policy did not give timelines and it was normal that an issue be first addressed informally, availing of mediation. It was submitted that the complainant had not followed procedure in resigning. They had not reverted to her after the meeting of the 21st February 2017 and the complainant should have followed up. There had not been a one-to-one meeting between the complainant and the Financial Controller. The respondent was surprised the complainant resigned and the process could have dealt with her complaint.

The Finance Director said that he wished for the Financial Controller and the complainant to resolve their issues. He expected that they had enough experience to do so. He said that he had been a manager for over 20 years. They wished to address employee grievances and had paid the complainant for all her annual leave. There was an onus on the employee to act. The complainant had wanted to go the HR route but there was an onus on her to resolve it. He was perplexed by her resignation and gave ample opportunity for her to resolve it. He thought it had been resolved. The meeting of the 6th February 2017 between the complainant and the Finance Controller had been a performance review meeting. The complainant made her bullying complaint after this and he met with her. The matter was then pursued by the informal process. The complainant had not followed procedures. She should have gone back to the Finance Director or contacted HR to clear up the “misunderstanding” regarding the follow-up to the meeting. Instead, she resigned. The respondent had a HR person on site every fortnight and there had been a misunderstanding as to what would follow the meeting.

The Financial Controller said that it was okay to make mistakes in the first few months, but in the complainant’s case, the problems continued. The month of December was the year-end and really busy. She denied threatening the complainant with her job. There had not been any further performance review of the complainant as she had resigned. There was also no performance review after she made the bullying complaint. She was told by the Finance Director that the complainant had made the complaint of bullying. She was not asked to do anything, for example to meet with the complainant. The Financial Controller said that she had spoken to the complainant about the IT package being difficult. The complaint of bullying was not fair and it was normal to have performance reviews. The review meeting had been normal. The respondent’s offices were small. The Financial Controller denied laughing at the complainant and may have asked her why she was resigning.

This is a dispute referred pursuant to the Industrial Relations Act, submitted by the complainant during her notice period. In essence, it is a dispute relating to how the respondent reacted to a bullying complaint made by the complainant against the manager. The complainant outlines that the Finance Director undertook to engage HR but did not do so. The respondent outlines that the complainant did not follow procedure or exhaust internal avenues.

This is not a claim of constructive dismissal, where the employee submits that they were entitled to deem themselves to have been dismissed. It is also not appropriate for me to make findings in relation to the significant conflicts between the parties. They include whether the actions of Financial Controller amount to performance management or were they bullying. There was conflict over whether the complainant’s job was threatened and whether the Financial Controller laughed in her face.

The question is whether the complainant was treated fairly. Pursuant to the informal steps in the Dignity at Work policy, the complainant met with a senior manager on the 21st February 2017. He undertook to engage HR support. His view was that the matter was subsequently resolved by the parties, as he expected. He was surprised by the later resignation. While informal resolution of such issues is very welcome, there is an onus to follow through on the steps agreed. This provides confidence, even in the informal resolution of issues. To this extent, the claim is well founded. Given the circumstances, I recommend that the respondent pay the complaint redress of €150.

CA-00010301-001

I recommend that the respondent pay the complainant €150 following her complaint regarding the application of the respondent Dignity at Work policy.

Bullying and harassment procedures