ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00008462
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A security guard | A provider of security services |
Dispute:
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-00011095-001 | 02/05/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 18/08/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Procedure:
On the 2nd May 2017, the complainant referred a dispute to the Workplace Relations Commission pursuant to the Industrial Relations Act. The dispute was scheduled for adjudication on the 18th August 2017. The complainant attended the adjudication. At the time the adjudication was scheduled to commence, it appeared that there was no appearance by or on behalf of the respondent. I noted that the respondent had not objected to the dispute proceeding to adjudication. I noted that the respondent had been given the time, date and venue of the adjudication and I waited some time for a late arrival. Having taken these steps, I proceeded with the adjudication in the absence of the respondent.
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.
Background:
The complainant claims unfair treatment at the hands of the respondent. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
In submissions, the complainant outlined that the respondent had breached its health and safety obligations because of the bullying and harassment he was subjected to. He has raised these issues with the respondent but rather than investigate these issues, he was suspended and subjected to disciplinary proceedings. He raises issues regarding transportation to a medical assessment on the 1st February 2017. He raises how the respondent engaged with his health insurer and how the manager treated him at various instances.
The complainant outlined that he wanted the warnings to be withdrawn. He had been suspended at this time. He had been suspended on the 28th February 2017 after having made a complaint of bullying and harassment. The complainant said that his last shift was on the 28th February 2017. He had been suspended since then. He made a complaint against the manager on the 22nd February 2017 but had not received a response to this complaint, other than being placed on suspension. There had been a disciplinary finding made against him on the 28th February 2017, despite there not being an investigation. The complainant had been punished for making a complaint.
The complainant said that cognisance should be taken of the arbitrary warnings issued by the respondent and that he had been subjected to bullying and harassment. The bullying occurred when he sought to exercise his rights and to refer issues to the Workplace Relations Commission, for example in relation to his sick pay and other issues. He outlined that the respondent assigned someone to bring him to the medical appointment in February 2017 but he did not take the lift. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend the adjudication and did not make submissions in relation to the dispute. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant raises many issues regarding his employment, including how the respondent addressed his complaints regarding bullying and harassment. The respondent did not challenge the complainant’s evidence. I find that the complainant has established that the respondent did not address his complaints, as required by their policy and in accordance with their statutory obligations. This amounts to unfair treatment. I recommend that the respondent pay to the complainant redress of €750 in respect of this dispute. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
CA-00011095-001 I find that the claim is well founded and pursuant to the Industrial Relations Act, I recommend that the respondent pay redress of €750 to the complainant for the unfair treatment. |
Dated: 27.03.2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Key Words:
Industrial Relations Act |