Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A general operative

A meat production facility

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00015987-001

24/11/2017

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

CA-00015987-002

24/11/2017

The respondent is a family-run, meat processing business employing 11 people. The complainant is a general operative and he commenced employment with the respondent in November 2013. His first complaint is that he did not receive a statement of his terms and conditions of employment. Under the Industrial Relations Act, he complains that that he has not been provided with personal protective equipment.

In his complaint form, the complainant stated:

“I have been working for this employer for four years as a part-time employee. My employer has never provided me neither with a contract of employment nor statement in writing on my terms of employment.”

At the hearing, the complainant produced a statement setting out the terms of his employment, translated into his native language. The respondent presented an English version, dated January 25th 2018. In his copy, the complainant had crossed out his job title, “General Operative” and replaced it with “Bonner”, which I understood to mean “boner.”

The respondent said that statements of terms and conditions are issued to employees every January with P60s and this is the reason that the complainant has a copy dated January 2018. They said that all employees in the company are general operatives and they perform all the tasks associated with meat processing including boning, packing and cleaning. The complainant has a grievance about his job title and wants to be referred to as a boner. When he was last given a statement of his terms of employment by his supervisor, the respondent said that the complainant threw it back at him.

It was evident that the complainant was issued with a statement of his terms and conditions of employment and I accept the respondent’s assertion that such statements are issued in January each year. For his convenience, the statement has been translated into the complainant’s language.   The complainant does not accept that he is employed as a general operative and this appears to be the basis of his complaint.

At the hearing, the complainant presented a copy of his statement of his terms and conditions of employment and therefore, there is no basis for his complaint that he did not receive a statement. He appears to have been motivated to make the complaint to put pressure on the respondent to change his job title from “general operative” to “boner.”

In accordance with section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, I have decided to dismiss this complaint on the basis that it is vexatious.

In his submission to the WRC, under the heading of “bullying and harassment,” the complainant said, “My employer do not treat me equally to full-time employees.” According to his written statement, this “unequal treatment” was because the respondent did not provide him with personal protective equipment such as boots, knives, wire gloves and long boots. When he was asked why he brought this complaint under the Industrial Relations Act rather than the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, the complainant said he was advised to make the complaint in this way.

When the respondent produced photographic evidence of the complainant wearing boots, hat, overalls, apron and wire gloves, he said that he didn’t want to talk about bullying and harassment. He went on to say that he didn’t want to come here (to the WRC) and he was sorry that he was here. When I asked him what he was looking for to resolve his complaint, he repeated that he wanted to change his boots and he wanted proper tools, gloves and knives.   He produced a photograph of two knives, one of which was worn down and the other which appeared to be fairly new.   He said that the worn knife was the one he was expected to work with. When this photo was passed to the respondent, they said that both knives in the photograph were not company knives. The complainant agreed that these were not company knives.

Continuing on the knife theme, the complainant said that he brings his work knife home to sharpen it himself, because, in his view, the sharpener in the workplace isn’t good enough. When I suggested that removal of company equipment may be a disciplinary matter as well as a breach of health and safety regulations, he made no response.

The respondent set out the background to their understanding of the complainant’s grievances. He has consistently refused to work more than 30 hours per week as he claims job-seekers’ allowance and other benefits from the Department of Social Protection.  In 2017, an officer from the Department reviewed his claims and contacted the respondent to find out how many days’ work were available to him each week.   When it emerged that the complainant elected not to work more than 30 hours per week, an investigation commenced into his benefit claims. Since then, relations between the complainant and the respondent have been fractious.

At the hearing, the respondent said that they tried to help the complainant to make up for benefits that he lost by offering him more work and by explaining the calculations of his increased wages before and after deductions for tax. They said that the complainant’s supervisor recommended him for an increase of €2.00 per hour, which the respondents agreed to.   Having had a good relationship with his supervisor, this has also become volatile and the complainant is difficult to manage.

With just 11 employees, the respondents said that everyone works together and there is no differentiation between them and the workforce. The complainant gets the same benefits as the other staff, but, for some reason, says that he is less well treated.

Although his complaint is that he has not been provided with personal protective equipment (PPE) such as gloves and boots, the respondent produced notes from the complainant’s supervisor who recorded that he repeatedly asked the complainant to use wire gloves and a protective body chain when using a knife. The note records that the complainant said that he didn’t need to use the equipment, despite the fact that he was using a knife.

The respondent company is a licensed meat production unit and is inspected without notice by veterinary officers from the Department of Agriculture. They must also comply with regulations of the Food Safety Authority (FSA) and the Health and Safety Authority (HSA). The employers have no discretion with regard to the use of PPE and, to maintain their licence, all staff must use PPE. The complainant was recently issued with new protective boots, but one of the owners observed that he wasn’t wearing them. When he was asked about this, he said that he brought them home. At the hearing, the complainant agreed that he brought the boots home.

Having listened to the complainant, it is my view that there is no substance to his complaint.   It appears that he was advised by a person who was not at the hearing and the advice was misleading. The alternative conclusion I have to arrive at is that he was motivated by malice.

At the hearing, it was evident that the complainant has no respect for his employers and little respect for the workings of the WRC, as he arrived late and unprepared and did not engage in any meaningful way with the process. It is clear that he is a disgruntled employee and it is my view that that his objective in making a complaint was simply to cause anxiety for the respondent.

At the hearing, the complainant agreed that relations were poor between himself and his employers.   I recommend that he gives some serious consideration to remaining on in the employment of the respondent. I also recommend that if he removes company property or fails to follow reasonable and lawful instructions with regard to health and safety, the respondent should deal with these matters in accordance with the company’s disciplinary procedure, as set out at clause 40 of the complainant’s statement of his terms and conditions of employment.

Vexatious complaints