Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Development Company

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-00018667-001

16/04/2018

The claimant was employed as a TUS Supervisor with the respondent from 2011 to the 2nd.November 2018.He believed his dignity at work had been infringed and was unhappy with the respondent’s processing of his bullying complaints against members of the respondent’s management team - Mr.B.O.L. and Mr.J.M.He submitted this behaviour went on for years throughout various locations and that the objective was to single the claimant out and destroy his dignity at work.He submitted that the behaviour became intolerable during negotiations with the parent dept. on pay and terms of employment for the claimant’s grade.He submitted that veiled threats were used’ to try to get me to sign a worthless , irrelevant contract and then used the same tactic to make my life hell when I would not agree to fall into line ..’Ultimately , the claimant commenced a period of sick leave for ill health and mental stress – he had to undergo 12 weeks of counselling funded by the respondent.The claimant submitted that he had never been disciplined or cautioned at any point in his career.He was aggrieved with the outcome of the investigation commissioned by the respondent and submitted that the appeals officer was compromised by virtue of her position as Treasurer of the Board.He submitted that the respondent had failed to reply to his requests for clarity and had failed to implement the recommendations that were formulated as part of the appeal process.

The respondent rejected the complaint and submitted that a comprehensive investigation was commissioned by them – the claimant’s complaints were not upheld.

It was submitted that most of the issues raised by the claimant related to negotiations around a new contract of employment which was offered in April 2017.It was submitted that the scale and conditions of employment were accepted by the unions nationally – the agreement allowed implementing bodies including the respondent company to set the terms and conditions for the claimant’s grade ; it was submitted that the respondent offered improved terms and conditions in the new contract .Some Supervisors rejected the offer alleging the were being blackmailed into accepting them .Ultimately , the offer was withdrawn and a higher pay scale was introduced without the improved conditions.

The claimant made his allegations in Oct. 2017 and it was submitted that most of the allegations were connected to the negotiations around the revised contracts.An external HR consultant was recruited to investigate the complaints .The complaints were not upheld and an appeal was heard by Ms.B , a non executive Director of the respondent organisation. The appeal was rejected .

It was submitted that the respondent’s definition of bullying behaviour is the same as that contained in the Health & Safety Authority Code of Practise and that in light of the finding of Justice Peter Charleton in Ruffley & The Board of Management in St.Anne’s School on the requirement for an objective test , ‘ the Claimant’s allegations do not amount to bullying as defined by the Health & Safety Authority Code of Practise’.It was submitted that Ruffley determined that the employer is entitled to expect ordinary robustness from employees in the course of work.

It was submitted that the alleged behaviours , if they did occur , did not constitute bullying and that what was stated at meetings ‘ lies within the normal engagement parameters that occur when people disagree’.It was submitted that the respondent accepted the recommendation on the organisation of a team building day , that they had funded counselling for the claimant , that the claimant was treated fairly and there was nothing more they could do in the circumstances.

I have reviewed the evidence presented at the hearing and noted the respective position of the parties. I note the investigator did not uphold the claimant’s complaint but clearly accepted that the claimant was acting in good faith and was very distressed by the subject matter of his complaints. I have considered in detail the provisions of the respondent’s dignity at work policy and have concluded that the respondent met their obligations with respect to same and that the investigator observed the terms of the policy in his conduct of the investigation. While I accept there is some merit in the claimant’s argument that the Appeals Officer could have been potentially compromised by virtue of her position on the respondent’s Board , the claimant was consulted in advance on the appeals process and only raised this concern after the event and following the issuing of the findings of the Appeals Officer. While I acknowledge the claimant’s bona fides and the distress he has suffered arising from the allegations made by him ,I find no compelling justification has been advanced to disturb the findings of the investigator .Accordingly I recommend against the claimant and do not uphold his complaint.