Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Betting Assistant

A Bookmaker

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-00023257-001

15/11/2018

Background

This is a complaint about an incident that occurred on Friday, May 18th 2018. On that day, the complainant was asked to attend a meeting with her area manager in a pub near the betting shop where she worked. At the meeting, the manager produced 50 or 60 betting slips that she claimed were wrongly “translated” onto the company’s betting system. This means that the bet that the customer placed was incorrectly uploaded on the record of bets placed. The manager said that these incorrect bets were found as a result of a security audit.

The complainant was shocked at the suggestion that she may have been responsible for 50 or 60 mistakes.   When the manager went through the dockets, the complainant noticed that one was a bet placed on a Sunday, and, as she doesn’t work on Sundays, she knew that she couldn’t have been responsible for this error. She said that the manager asked her about moving from the shop she had worked in for several years, and she got upset.

When she went back to her shop, the complainant said that she rang a person she knew in the company’s security office and asked her about the audit. The following Monday, this person confirmed to the complainant that the bets shown to the complainant by the manager in the pub the previous Friday were not as a result of a security audit.

The complainant was shocked and confused by the manager’s allegation that she had made mistakes on 50 or 60 bets. She went out sick on May 19th 2018, and she contacted the human resources department four weeks later. She also got in touch with the company’s employee assistance programme and attended several counselling sessions. She submitted a complaint about the way she was treated by the manager. Her complaint was that there was no evidence that she had made mistakes on up to 60 bets, it was inappropriate to have a meeting in a pub and that the manager had lied when she said a security audit had revealed the errors.

Consideration of the Complainant’s Grievance

On June 28th 2018, the complainant attended an informal meeting to have her complaint dealt with. She was accompanied by her sister and the area manager attended with a member of the human resources department. At this meeting, the manager said that, at the meeting on May 18th, she said there was an issue with about 21 bets and not 50 or 60. She also denied saying that the bets were revealed as a result of a security audit.

Following this meeting, the manager’s note of the meeting of May 18th was sent to the complainant. The note records that 50 or 60 errors were discussed and that the complainant became aggressive and that she was irate with the security manager when she phoned to ask her about the audit.

The complainant submitted a formal complaint and a meeting took place on August 28th 2018.   The outcome was a recommendation that the manager and the complainant engage in mediation. The complainant felt that she could not sit in the same room with the manager and she appealed the outcome of the investigation into her complaint.

On September 27th, she attended an appeal meeting. On October 9th, she received the outcome which again recommended mediation. She remained out sick and considered leaving the company.

Return to Work

In late November, a human resources business partner contacted the complainant to discuss her absence and to consider what could be done to get her back to work. By this time, the area manager with whom the complainant had the dispute had left the company. The complainant said she would return to work and it was agreed that she would be assigned to a new district. Hours of work and location were also agreed and the complainant returned to work in December 2018.

Apology

At the hearing, the complainant said that what was most important to her was an apology from the area manager for alleging that she had made mistakes on 50 or 60 bets. This person no longer works with the company.   At the hearing, the employee relations manager said that the number of bets with errors was wrong, and there were eight bets translated incorrectly. She acknowledged that the last few months have been very difficult for the complainant and, on behalf of the company, she apologised for the stress that the complainant went through because of what happened.

Having considered this matter, I think that this grievance could have been resolved in June 2018, when the complainant submitted an informal complaint. It was apparent at the hearing that the complainant is regarded by her employer as a good worker and as a person of integrity. I am happy to note that the employee relations manager apologised to the complainant for the stress that she went through because of the length of time it took to facilitate her return to work, and it is my view that this apology signals an end to this matter.

As the parties reached a resolution to this matter themselves, I have no recommendation to make.   I wish to acknowledge the support that the complainant’s sister provided at the hearing. I also wish to acknowledge the intervention of the human resources business partner who arranged for the complainant to return to work in a location and on a schedule that suited her.