ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00009584

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	Warehouse Operative	A Distribution Centre

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-00012581-001	17/07/2017
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969	CA-00012581-002	17/07/2017

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 11/01/2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee

Procedure:

In accordance with 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).

The case is closely linked, on identical grounds to ADJ Nos 9641,9643,9635,9641,9608 & 9584

Background:

The dispute concerns bullying and harassment allegations made by the Complainant against Managers of an “End User” Respondent Company -Company A. The Complainant is an employee of a Service Company - Company B

1: Summary of Complainant’s Case:

CA-00012581-001

The Complainant is an employee of Respondent B who provide services to Respondent A (the Respondent in this case – the end user). Mr. A1 of Respondent A engaged in behaviour that was intimidatory and bullying against the Complainant. He was supported by Manager A2. The issues were reported to Senior Management but no satisfactory outcome was achieved. No investigation was conducted.

CA-00012581-002

The case here is identical save that the Respondent Manager is Mr A2.

2: Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent pointed out that the case was being taken under the

Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and no other legislation is involved.

The Respondent rejected the allegations made on the basis that

1: The issues at the core of the case were investigated initially by Respondent A jointly with Respondent B -the Complainants employer. A second investigation was undertaken by Respondent B.

The Complainants participated fully in the investigation -accordingly it was accepted that the Employer was Respondent B. Responded A -the listed Respondent in this case has accordingly no direct liability.

2: Notwithstanding the above, the complaints made were fully investigated, including an Appeal stage, and rejected by the Investigator and the Appeal Chairperson.

3: The allegations also have a significate pay element and as such, being clearly from a body of workers, an Adjudication Officer can have no jurisdiction.

3: Findings and Conclusions:

CA-00012581-001 & CA-00012581-002

In the evidence presented, both Oral and a substantial written submission, it was clear that the correct Respondent was the Complainant’s employer – Respondent B.

None the less it is acknowledged that a duty of care exists from an “end user” to employees of a Service Company – (Respondent B in this case) and that unacceptable behaviour by managers of an end User to Service Company employees are unacceptable.

However, in this case Respondent B carried out a full investigation, (assisted initially by a Manager of Respondent A) including an Appeal stage and found against the Complainants. Having read the papers and heard the evidence I was happy that this process was properly carried out.

I also noted that the standard of evidence needed to establish a prima facie case for a Bullying and Harassment claim was not met in any regard. A Once Off incident was referred to but no substantial other direct evidence, other than allegations, seemed to be available of ongoing or previous Bullying and Harassment actions by the Managers.

Accordingly, I am happy that no liability attached to the “End User” - Respondent A in this case.

The Claims under the Industrial Relations Act,1969 are dismissed.

=========================================

However, in closing, it is also important to note that a major issue has arisen between a Manager of the Respondent A in this case and a group of Employees of Respondent B. it is complicated by the Nationality issue (the Manager and the Employees (albeit of different Employers) are largely of the same nationality).

This issue is covered in detail in Adjudication Adj-00010296 and the Recommendations contained in that Adjudication might well be studied by the Respondent in this case.

4: 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 /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-00012581-001	Claim Dismissed / Wrong Respondent
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969	CA-00012581-002	Claim Dismissed./Wrong Respondent.

Dated: 29.6.18

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee