ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00013512

Parties: 

DISPUTE:

Date of Adjudication Hearing:  26/06/2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Rosaleen Glackin

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969andfollowing 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 has been employed as an Airline Crew Member since 4 June 2000. She works a Five day fortnight and is paid £700.00 gross. She referred a dispute to the Workplace Relations Commission on 12th March 2018 in relation to Bullying and Harassment.

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINANT’S POSITION.

The Complainant stated that she had lodged a grievance on 28th October 2015 in relation to a named Employee concerning an incident on a named flight on 14th October 2015. There was an unsuccessful outcome to the informal process on 2nd December 2015. The Complainant lodged a second complaint on 9th December 2015 and this was acknowledged on 10th December 2015. She was informed by letter dated 18th December 2015 from the Investigator appointed that her complaint would be investigated. The Complainant was interviewed by the Investigator on 26th January 2016. She was informed on 8th February 2016 that a new Investigator had been appointed as the previous Investigator had left the Company. This new Investigator informed the Complainant on 2nd March 2016 that when her first complaint had been concluded her second complaint would then be addressed. (This was on foot of a letter dated 8/2/2016 from the Complainant). The other employee was interviewed on 29th March 2016. The Complainant sought an update by letter dated 19th May 2016 and the Complainant was on sick leave from 20th May 2016 to early September 2016. Another new Investigator was appointed on 7th June 2016.

The Complainant had a return to work meeting on 9th September 2016 with named Team Leader and there was some discussion concerning the investigation. There was an interview with the Complainant on 24th September 2016, notes provided. The other named Employee was interviewed on  31st March 2017. Two other crew members, named, were also interviewed on 1st and 5th October 2017. There was a Grievance Outcome issued on 24th October 2017. The Complainant appealed the outcome on 3rd November 2017. This was conducted on 8th November 2017. Her appeal was not successful.

SUMMARY OF RESPONDENT’S POSITION.

The Complaint is that the Complainant is dissatisfied with the outcome of an internal grievance conducted by the Respondent under the Company Grievance Procedures. The Complainant submitted a formal grievance on 28th October 2015. This related to the alleged behaviour of a named colleague, a senior crew member on flight on 14th October 2015. A meeting was held between the Complainant, her Team Manager, the named colleague and her Team Manager on 2nd December 2015 in an effort to resolve the issue. This was not successful. The Complainant submitted an additional complaint on 9th December 2015 and this related to how her original complaint had been handled. She was advised on 8th February 2016 that a separate and independent Manager was appointed to hear her second grievance and she was informed on 2nd March 2016 that her second complaint would proceed when the process had concluded in relation to her first complaint.

The Respondent appointed an independent Manager to conduct the first investigation and a meeting was held on 26th January 2016 and the Investigator then met with two named employees in relation to the incident. The Investigator informed the Respondent in May 2016 that due to operational and scheduling issues he would not be able to complete the investigation. A new Investigator was appointed in June 2016 but the Complainant was then on sick leave then until September 2016. The Investigator met with the Complainant on 9th September 2016 and witnesses were met with on 31st March 2017, 1st October 2017 and 5th October 2017 and the outcome was issued to the Complainant on 24th October 2017. The Complainant appealed the outcome on 3rd November 2017 and she submitted her grounds of appeal. An Independent Manager from HR was appointed but despite several invitations from the HR Manager to meet with the Complainant, she declined to meet in person and the appeal proceeded by way of documentary review. The appeal outcome was issued on 5th February 2018.

The Respondent acknowledged that the investigation of the complaint encountered significant delays and they acknowledged this was unacceptable. The Respondent asserted that the Grievance had been examined by two experienced independent Managers and both concluded that none of the allegations made by the Complainant should be upheld.

The Respondent asserted that the Complainant in her complaint form to the WRC makes serious allegations concerning Bullying and Harassment but noted that the Complainant has not invoked the Company Dignity at Work Procedure to lodge any complaint.  The only complaint she lodged was under the Grievance Procedures of the Company

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS.

On the basis of the evidence, written submissions and supporting documentation I find as follows.

The Company operates both a Grievance Policy and Procedures and a Dignity at Work Policy and Procedure.  The Complainant lodged a formal Grievance under the Grievance Procedures of the Company on 28th October 2015. This complaint was fully investigated by the Investigator appointed to hear the complaint, (albeit after the first Investigator had to withdraw for operational reasons). I find the investigation was conducted in accordance with the agreed procedures, both the Complainant and the person against whom the complaint was made were interviewed as were witnesses. The outcome was not to uphold the Complainant’s complaints against a named employee. The Complainant was afforded a right of appeal which she exercised although I note that despite numerous requests the Complainant refused to meet with the HR Manager appointed to hear the appeal. The Complainant made it clear that she wished the appeal to proceed “on the basis of my written grounds for appeal” in an email dated 14th December 2017. The appeal therefore proceeded on the basis of a documentary review only taking account of the grounds of the appeal. The outcome was not to uphold the appeal.

I find that the Complainant has been afforded due process in relation to her complaint under the Grievance Procedures of the Company, safe for the delay which the Respondent has apologised to the Complainant for.

There was no evidence presented to me at the Hearing that the Complainant had made a complaint of Bullying and Harassment under the Company Dignity at Work Policy.

RECOMMENDATION.

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute. On the basis of the evidence, my Findings above and in accordance with Section 13 of the Act I do not find in favour of the Complainant in relation to this dispute referred to the Workplace Relations Commission on 12th March 2018

Dated:   06/09/2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Rosaleen Glackin

Key Words: