ADJ-00010126

ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00010126

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	A Senior Administrator	A Financial Services Company

Complaint(s):

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-00013206-001	20/08/2017
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969	CA-00013206-002	20/08/2017
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969	CA-00013206-003	20/08/2017
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969	CA-00013206-004	20/08/2017
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969	CA-00013206-005	20/08/2017
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969	CA-00013206-006	20/08/2017

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 06/11/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 following 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).

It was immediately clear that considerable good will existed between the parties and what was required was the re-establishment of proper local internal Communications.

This view is reflected in the Recommendation.

Background:

The dispute concerns changes to the timing of working hours especially around School Term times, the non-implementation of agreed internal procedures -specifically the Grievance Procedures & the Bullying and Harassment Procedures and alleged discrimination in working hours allocations in comparison with other staff.

1: Summary of Complainant’s Case:

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Summary Complaint
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969	CA-00013206-001	Discrimination regarding changes in Hours of Work
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969	CA-00013206-002	Respondent not following agreed Company Procedures
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969	CA-00013206-003	Allegation of Bullying and Harassment -implied disability “Mental Health” issues. This was false and most upsetting.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969	CA-00013206-004	Not following Bullying and Harassment Procedures.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969	CA-00013206-005	Bullying and Harassment -specifically making phone calls/e mail to Complainant while she was at home on Sick Leave.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969	CA-00013206-006	Discrimination in regard to Working Hours specifically as regards Term times/School Holidays.

2: Summary of Respondent’s Case:

Rather than give a Tabular response to the Complainants case the Respondent argued strongly that that the Complainant had not fully utilised the range of Internal Respondent procedures. The bringing of the Claim and the 6 encompassed Complaints was therefore completely premature. The Complainant should be requested to re-engage in the Internal procedures and have her issues agreed in this local forum. The Respondent acknowledged that the Complainant may “have lost faith” in the fairness of the Internal procedures. This was a mistaken belief and the Respondent assured the Complainant and the Adjudication Officer that if the Complainant re engaged in the Internal Process complete fairness and proper professionalism would apply.

3: Findings and Conclusions:

Extensive written evidence, copies of meeting minutes and a wide range of e mail correspondence was provided. Considerable oral evidence was also given by the parties.

I came to the view that despite the volumes of correspondence an essential element of Mistrust and a lack of belief in the mutual Good Faith of the Parties had arisen.

The situation had not been helped by the quite onerous and apparently ongoing Medical issues experienced by the Complainant. The Complainant felt that there was a lack of proper understanding and sympathy for her medical situation. I did not conclude that this was a bad as she thought but was an element, none the less, contributing to a non-positive mind set regarding the Company’s efforts at resolving her situation.

I noted the minutes of the meeting of the 25th October 2017 where the Complainant felt that she had acquired the “Nightmare Employee” label from the HR Department and was not treated fairly or professionally as a result. This was effectively why she had recourse to the WRC Adjudication Service.

Listening to the verbal exchanges and reading the written evidence including Medical reports I came strongly to the view that there was a need to re-establish some form of trust between the parties. The issues involved, while close to the heart of the Complainant, appeared to be capable of resolution without too much difficulty. I found at the Oral Hearing that the atmosphere between the parties was largely positive and not indicative of a major breach in relationships.

Accordingly, I am recommending that the Parties re engage in local discussions but seriously look at the possibility of engaging an Independent Mediator to help with the re building of trust and the facilitation of the process. This may not be necessary but if the parties feel it might be worthwhile I would recommend it.

I am sure that IBEC, who represent the Respondent can offer assistance with this request. They would know the contact details of many suitable Independent Mediators.

To offer comfort to the Complainant I am also reassuring her that if the resumed local discussions and if possible the use of an Independent Mediator fail to achieve an agreed solution she can re- lodge her claims, for my attention, at the WRC Adjudication Service.

Hopefully this will not be necessary.

Decision:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Summary Decision /Refer to Section 3 above for detailed reasoning.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969	CA-00013206-001	Recommend further Local Discussions with the services, if required , of an Independent Mediator as a “trust” building exercise. If Local Discussions, as suggested, fail to reach an acceptable outcome, the Complainant can re-enter her claims at the WRC.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969	CA-00013206-002	As above
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969	CA-00013206-003	As above
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969	CA-00013206-004	As above
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969	CA-00013206-005	As above
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969	CA-00013206-006	As above

Dated: 30th January 2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee

Key Words: