Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{A Worker}

{A Manufacturing Company}

Representatives

Jim Fuery SIPTU

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-00018626-001

20/04/2018

The Worker has long service as a General Operative with the Respondent. She was issued a warning following an Investigation process.

The Worker is a shop steward. She was not allowed representation at the investigation and had to bring a colleague instead. Her co-worker was permitted to bring a witness to the investigation, and the co-worker, witness and complainant were all permitted to write their witness statements together, in front of the manager who also supplied a witness statement. The Complainant and her witness were asked to rewrite their statements and did so.

The Worker highlighted issues for a week before the incident occurred this was ignored by management as her colleague had been removed from her role. The Worker was her replacement and this caused difficulties. The Worker was not trained by her colleague which is the norm. No weight was given to these issues. The investigation team concluded that the incident occurred just before the work day started, so it was not work-related issues that brought the incident on but it was consciously initiated by the Worker. There was no basis for this due to the issues bring raised previously and was likely work-related. The investigation discounted a statement from the Worker’s witness regarding the events of the previous days. The informal process was not used. There was no threatening content in the statement made and the process was entirely flawed. The Worker seeks that the warning issued is overturned.

The Respondent is a manufacturing company. The Worker has long service with the company. The Company has a strong relationship with the Trade Union representing the Workers.

An incident occurred on 7th February 2018 between the Worker and a colleague. It resulted in a formal complaint being made by the colleague against the Worker under the Dignity at Work policy. The Respondent first sought to resolve the complaint under the informal procedure but despite their efforts a formal process of investigation ensued. Fair procedures were complied with in the investigation process and there was a case to answer found but not serious or gross misconduct considerations. A separate disciplinary process proceeded before a different Manager.

The statement of the Worker’s witness was submitted and was considered but was legitimately found not be directly relevant as the witness did not witness the incident that occurred. As the Complainant was very distraught a colleague accompanied her to the meeting with the Production Manager that day. The representative of the Worker was not present in work on 7 February. When the informal process failed, it moved to a formal review. The Worker sought a representative who is her immediate Supervisor and it was considered that this would seriously complicate matters. The Worker had the opportunity to have a representative who was full time or someone unconnected. The Complainant was informed that her witness would not be an appropriate representative for the same reason.

The company’s grievance procedure was applied up to appeal stage. The Respondent acted fairly, in compliance with its procedures and the sanction was proportionate. A verbal warning was given for a period of 6 months which will then be removed from the Worker’s file.

The Worker has referred a complaint in relation to disciplinary sanction under S13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, and the Respondent does not object to an Adjudication Officer hearing this complaint.

The Worker is aggrieved that the matter was dealt with as an informal process, however, both parties would not agree to this and so the matter proceeded as a formal complaint under the Dignity at Work procedure. The Worker is also aggrieved that she did not have a union representative in the investigation however, the Respondent’s concerns were legitimate and I accept there were difficulties in allowing an internal union representative where the individual is the Worker’s Supervisor. The Worker had the right to seek representation from an external Trade Union representative but did not take this up.

The Worker complains that the background difficulties with her colleague in relation to the incident were given insufficient weight. She raised this with the Supervisor in the week prior to the incident but nothing was done. The Worker was moved into her colleague’s position and the colleague was transferred into another role which she was unhappy about. The colleague would not train the Worker and requested someone else do this. There was no issue between the parties previously. The Worker complained that she was not being helped or showed how to carry out the work to management but no assistance was given. Following the incident, she apologised to her colleague. She was upset that a complaint was pursued under the Dignity at Work procedure. The statement was not threatening, and feels the sanction is unwarranted.

The Worker accepts she made the statement but denies shouting at her colleague. This was a one-off incident which does not amount to bullying. Bullying is defined as repeated inappropriate conduct in the definition contained in the Code of Practice on Addressing Bullying in the Workplace. It does seem that the Worker’s complaints regarding the difficulties of her change in role and contribution by her colleague leading up to the incident were not given due consideration in the investigation. This gives a context which substantiates her claim that the incident was work-related.

In light of the foregoing, and notwithstanding that the warning has already expired, I recommend that the warning be withdrawn and entirely expunged from the Worker’s record.

I recommend that the warning be withdrawn and entirely expunged from the Worker’s record.

Bullying definition, investigation process, repeated conduct, apology, warning expired.