Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Administrator / Bookkeeper

A Community Employment Training Scheme

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00017596-001

22/02/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00017596-004

22/02/2018

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

CA-00017596-005

22/02/2018

The complainant is studying with the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants ACCA) and, in late 2017, she registered for employment on a community employment (CE) scheme. The respondent company is a sports facility with an associated CE scheme. On October 9th 2017, the complainant started work there in the role of a bookkeeper / administrator.

In her evidence at the hearing, the complainant said that there were financial problems in the scheme and by early 2018, there was no money to pay staff. About 20 CE workers finished up on February 13th 2018. The complainant was out sick due to stress for a short while, but she transferred to a different CE scheme for one week where she worked as an administrator in the HR department. She started a new job as a financial assistant with a charity on April 4th 2018.

This complaint is about the non-payment of wages, about the complainant’s perception that she was bullied and harassed at work, and, about the way in which the respondent dealt with accounting and payroll matters and the issues that led to the close of the CE scheme in February 2018.

This complaint was submitted to the WRC on February 22nd 2018. The complainant had not been paid any wages since February 1st.   She got no wages on February 8th, 15th and 22nd. On February 6th, the CE supervisor gave the complainant a letter for the Department of Social Protection and she got a supplementary welfare payment. When she transferred to the new CE scheme on February 26th, she received the arrears of wages she was due from the previous scheme.

While she received her arrears of wages, the complainant said that she was left short of €24.50 and she did not get a payslip for the final three weeks of her employment.

The respondent did not attend the hearing.

This complaint was submitted to the WRC on February 22nd 2018, but, by February 26th, the new CE scheme paid the complainant and her colleagues the wages they were due from the first CE scheme. I accept that the failure of the respondent to pay wages in February 2018 was stressful and caused difficulties for the complainant at the time. I also have to conclude that, in the end, she suffered no loss of income because, while she may have been left short of €24.50 in wages, the payment that she received as emergency supplementary welfare was greater than this amount.

With regard to the non-issuing of payslips for the last three weeks of the complainant’s employment, I expect that the reason for this is because the respondent did not pay wages for these weeks.

As the CE scheme is now closed, I see no purpose in pursuing the respondent to rectify these matters at this stage.

I decide that this complaint under the Payment of Wages Act is not upheld.

In the form she submitted to the WRC, the complainant said that she was harassed and bullied at work by not being provided with training, by having her contract terminated and in her conditions of employment. At the hearing, I asked the complainant to explain how and on what grounds she was harassed.

She said that when she started with the CE scheme in October 2017, she was told that the current bookkeeper would be leaving at the end of October. When she joined the scheme, she had to share a desk and computer with this person. At the end of October, her colleague did not leave and the complainant was informed that this person’s contract was extended until the end of January. The complainant was unhappy about this, as they were both working at the same desk and sharing a computer.

By December, it was apparent that there were problems with the payroll and the complainant and her desk-partner were informed that they were “banned from the payroll packages.” She said that she and her colleague were not blamed for the mistakes, but they were told that they could no longer have access to the payroll software.

At one stage, when the office where the complainant worked was being re-organised, she said that she was asked to carry files upstairs to the office of the financial controller.   She felt that this request was inappropriate, because the financial controller was not her boss, so she didn’t bring the files up to her office.

The complainant said that when she joined the CE scheme, the supervisor said that they would pay her fees to do more accountancy training, but they ran out of money and they didn’t pay for any training.

On February 19th, the complainant said that she called to the office of the financial controller to get a P45 and a P60. The financial controller wasn’t there and she asked her assistant to ask the financial controller to get in touch with her, but she never did. She also asked the financial controller to provide her with evidence that she worked there from October 2017 until February 2018, but she never received any such confirmation and she claims that this is a form of abuse.

The respondent did not attend the hearing.

On the form she submitted to the WRC, the complainant did not claim to have been discriminated against on any of the nine grounds specified in the Employment Equality Act.   At the hearing, she made no argument in support of a complaint of discrimination. She simply claims to have been bullied and harassed.

It was apparent from the evidence of the complainant that the CE scheme she joined in October 2017 was considerably less organised that she expected. She was affronted when she was told that she was sharing a desk with a colleague. By December, the scheme was in a financial crisis. By February, there was no money to pay the employees and she was let go. Her experience on this scheme was a complete disappointment. Working as a trainee bookkeeper in the finance department in the eye of a financial storm was stressful and worrying, and her perception is that the scheme lacked any adherence to the normal rules of accounting.

The complainant was attempting to complete an ACCA diploma, and to do this, she had to have evidence of being employed in a finance department for three years.   She had hoped to complete some of that time in the CE scheme and she was angry and upset when things didn’t work out.

From the complainant’s evidence, it is clear that she was upset by her experience on the CE scheme.   What is lacking is evidence that the treatment she described meets the standard set out in the accepted definition of bullying, which is “repeated inappropriate behaviour …which could reasonably be regarded as undermining the individual's right to dignity at work.”

The complainant felt that having to share a desk was odd and I accept that it must have been somewhat undignified. The objective of the shared desk seems to have had the purpose of keeping an extra person on the CE scheme. I find no evidence of the deviousness needed to show that this was intended to undermine the complainant. The financial problems must have caused stress to everyone on the scheme, and the impact of this was not directed specifically at the complainant. She was disappointed because she was let go, and because she expected that the scheme would fund further training, but disappointment is not the same as bullying, and broken promises are not harassment.

While the complainant was clearly unhappy about how she was treated by the respondent, I find that she has not made out a case that she was bullied or harassed, and I find that her complaint under the Employment Equality Act is misconceived.

I have concluded that this complaint is misconceived and I decide therefore that it is not upheld.

Under this heading, the complainant said that she was disrespected because the finance software packages were removed from the computer she shared with her colleague. She said that she tried to insist that the supervisor on the CE scheme followed certain rules and regulations. When she told him that rules have to be followed, she said he responded that, “it depends on what the company wants to do.”

The respondent did not attend the hearing.

This is a complaint about the culture and work practices in the CE scheme. As the complainant has now moved on from this work-place, it is my view that there is no purpose in considering this complaint or in making a recommendation for a resolution, as the respondent is not in a position to implement it.

The complainant is anxious to become a qualified accountant and to improve her prospects.   It is apparent that her expectations on this CE scheme were not met in any respect. Working on the scheme was stressful and its closure in February 2018 was a huge disappointment. When she attended the hearing in June, she was still angry about what happened and I have some sympathy for what she went through. I find however, that these complaints were, on the whole, not well-made and that she could have benefited from some advice before she submitted her form to the WRC. On the positive side, she said she is now working in a new role and I expect that she will complete her studies there and eventually become a fully-qualified accountant.

As the complainant did not have an opportunity to pursue her grievances when she was employed by the respondent, and, as the CE scheme where she was employed has ended, I recommend that no action be taken by the respondent in respect of this dispute.   As the complainant has moved on to a new job, I recommend that she treat this matter as closed.

Payment of wages, bullying and harassment, discrimination, industrial relations