Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Administrator

A Golf Club

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00020781-001

25/07/2018

The Worker commenced her employment with the Employer on 7th April 2014 as Administrator.

The Worker claims that a grievance, which she raised with the Honorary Treasurer of the Club in relation to her treatment by the Honorary Chairman and Honorary Secretary was not dealt with. She also alleges that a complaint against her was not investigated and was brought to the attention of the Committee who have no dealings with staff issues.

SIPTU on behalf of the Worker submits that the Golf Club is run by a voluntary Committee, which consists if the Honorary Treasurer Mr. A, Honorary Chairman, Mr. B and Honorary Secretary Ms C. The current Committee was appointed in 2017 and the Worker claims that this was when she began having difficulties in the workplace. The Worker joined SIPTU in September 2017 due to the difficulties she was having in work and because of the manner in which she was being spoken to by the Honorary Chairman and Honorary Secretary.

Firstly, the Worker outlined in detail her dealings with a group of customers on 2nd November 2017. The Worker submits that she subsequently came across an online review from one of the gentlemen. The Worker submits that she mentioned this to the Honorary Chairman on 20th November 2017. He asked if she was upset. She replied that she was as she had not been rude to the gentlemen. She stated that she had only been doing her job as per the guidelines, which were set down by the Club. The Honorary Chairman told her not to worry about it and she left it at that.

The Worker submits that she was on annual leave when she received a telephone call from the Honorary Chairman on 29th December 2017 to ask if she would come into work as the annual subscriptions had to go out urgently. She obliged and came into work. The Worker claims that a staff member, Mr D and the Honorary Chairman were in the office along with Mr T (a member) and his wife.

The Worker returned to work after her holidays on 4th January 2018. The Worker submits that she was on the phone at 9am on 9th January 2018. She claims that the Honorary Secretary phoned her at 9.09am on her mobile and left a message to contact her. The Greenkeeper then came in and said to the Worker that the Honorary Chairman had phoned him to say that the Honorary Secretary had tried to get through to the office three times. She then phoned the Worker’s mobile. The Worker submits that this was unreasonable behaviour. There was nothing urgent and the Honorary Secretary could have left a message on the office voicemail.

The Worker submits that on 9th January she advised the Honorary Treasurer that she had joined SIPTU to get advice over the way she had been spoken to over the year. She discussed the issue of her being requested to update the website and the Honorary Treasurer advised her that this was not her job. The Worker also advised him of the issue of the Honorary Secretary ringing her personal mobile and not leaving a message on the office phone. The Honorary Treasurer stated that the Honorary Secretary should not be calling her on her mobile. The Worker submits that she advised the Honorary Treasurer that she was bringing in the union and he asked her not to. He said that he would speak to the Honorary Chairman and the Honorary Secretary. The Worker submits that she advised that she did not wish to be treated like she was the last time by the Honorary Chairman when he did not speak to her for a week. She advised that she wished to be professional and move on.

The Worker submits that the Honorary Treasurer was aware that she had been stressed over the way she had been spoken to. She advised that she was four years in the job and there was never any need to join a union, but she had no choice due to the way she was being treated.

The Worker submits that on 15th January 2018 a member phoned and while his transaction was being processed he brought to her attention a review on TripAdvisor. The Worker called in the Honorary Chairman and told him about the review and said that it was not true. He asked her to call the Honorary Secretary and read it out to her. The Honorary Secretary commented that it was not about what the Worker said but the way which she said it. The Worker stated that she would not be informing about the Club new rules any more as she was being lambasted on the website over it. The Honorary Secretary replied that there would be no one coming to the Club because of the Worker.

The Worker submits that on 17th January 2018 she raised the issue of the new rules and asked if the Club was going to inform the online booking service provider of same to avoid further dissatisfaction from their clientele.

The Worker submits that the Honorary Secretary informed her that the TripAdvisor review was read out at the Management meeting on 15th January 2018. The Worker submits that she was taken back as it was her that made them aware of the complaint and staff were told by the Honorary Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer that staff issues would not be discussed with the rest of the Management Committee. At this point the Honorary Chairman arrived and the Honorary Secretary told him that the Worker was upset. The Chairman stated that another letter of complaint had come in. The Worker submits that she asked who was the letter from and requested to see. She was told that the Chairman did not have the letter to hand but it was from a member who came into the shop and who said that the Worker was rude to him over Christmas period. The complaint was about the Worker’s attitude. The Worker advised that she did not work over Christmas and the Honorary Secretary said that Mr T (a member) got his vouchers before the Worker went on annual leave on 18th December. The Worker submits that initially the Honorary Secretary gave her a copy of the letter without the signature to protect the anonymity of the person. However, following a request from the Honorary Treasurer a full copy of the letter was given to her. The Treasurer confirmed to the Worker that he did not know anything about either the TripAdvisor review or the letter until they were read out at the Committee meeting and that the Captain brought the letters to the meeting. He confirmed that the Committee was not informed that it was the Worker who brought the TripAdvisor complaint to their attention and that she was refuting same.

The Worker submits that signature on the latest letter looked like Mr. T’s. As he was a personal friend of the family she offered to ring him to explain and apologise if he thought that she had been rude. The Worker was told not to do so as the Secretary had already phoned him, and it was not him. The Worker rang Mr T and he confirmed that he had been contacted by the Chairman. He subsequently saw the letter and said that he did not know how his name was put to that signature.

The Worker submits that she asked the Chairman for a copy of the Minutes of the Committee meeting but he refused to give her same.

Subsequently, SIPTU wrote to the Employer on 29th January requesting that the matter be investigated by an external third party. The Honorary Treasurer responded by letter dated 26th February 2018 that they were holding a Management and Trustees meeting that evening and could reply as soon as possible but he would be indisposed until the 3th March 2018.

The Honorary Treasurer wrote again on 9th March 2018 stating that “…it is fair to say that there have been disagreements between management and [the Worker] in the recent past…”

He requested a meeting between the Management Committee and the Worker and her representative with a view to resolving issues. SIPTU agreed to it in writing on 23rd March 2018. On 4th April 2018 SIPTU wrote to the Employer setting proposed dates and setting out the issues to address:

1.       The manner in which the Worker was being treated by the Honorary Chairman and Secretary.

2.       The complaint on TripAdvisor.

3.       The letter of complaint.

On 13th April 2018 SIPTU sent email to the Treasurer requesting that the matter be referred to an external investigation as the matter was ongoing since January.

On 26th April 2018 SIPTU sent a reminder email to the Treasurer.

On 2nd May 2018 SIPTU wrote to the Treasurer stating that unless they heard from the Club within seven days they would refer the matter to the WRC.

On 8th May 2018 the Club wrote back stating that they were agreeable to meet and rejecting any bullying allegations and advising that Mr. N. HR Adviser would represent them.

On 14th May 2018 SIPTU replied stating that the Worker was not alleging bullying but negative treatment and advising that she objected to their representative Mr. N.

On 22nd May 2018 the Treasurer wrote refuting bullying and advising that they were prepared to meet.

On 14th June 028 the Treasurer wrote again to SIPTU refuting allegation of ongoing negative treatment and advising that they were entitled to have Mr N representing the Club. He stated that they wish to resolve the mutual difficulties as per of their Grievance Procedures.

The Worker submits that an informal meeting took place on 20th June 2018 and was attended by the Treasurer, Chairman, Secretary, Mr. N, SIPTU and the Worker. No resolution was reached at this meeting. The Worker submits that the meeting was opened by Mr N and then the Treasurer blurted out confidential information which the Worker had shared with him. He asked SIPTU representative if she knew that the Worker had sued her previous employer. The Secretary then made a reference to another incident and implied that there was another complaint against the Worker. The Secretary went on to put it in writing that there was an altercation between Mr E and the Worker, which has now been proven to be unfounded. Mr N and the Chairman stated that the Chairman was afraid to come into the office in case the Worker would sue him. It was, however, conceded at the meeting that the Worker was an excellent worker. The Secretary also conceded that in hindsight that it was remiss of her not to inform the Committee that the Worker brought the Trip Advisor review to their attention. The Club stated that they would write to Mr T to ask him if he wrote the undated letter of complaint.

On 26th June 2018 SIPTU wrote to the Treasurer requesting a copy of the letter being sent by the Club to Mr T and a copy of his reply. SIPTU requested an apology from the Club for the upset and distress caused to the Worker by the Club’s failure to investigate the matter of the letter and the review.

On 28th June 2018 the Treasurer wrote to SIPTU advising that the Club had decided not to write to Mr T as he is an elderly gentleman. They stated that the Worker need to “move on” in relation to these issues.

The Worker submits that she left her employment on 9th August 2018. She felt that she had no alternative but to leave her position as she was very stressed as a result of the actions of the Treasurer, Secretary and the Chairman. She claims that she began to feel anxious going to work and had difficulty in sleeping at times. She was afraid that if she did not leave her health would deteriorate further and she would end up with mental health problems. For six months she remained totally professional in her dealing with management. However, she claims that after the meeting and the letter from the Secretary accusing her of an altercation she could not remain in her employment where she was shown no respect. When she handed her resignation to management it was not even acknowledged by the Treasurer or Chairman. The Honorary Secretary did thank her for the letter. The Worker claims that there was a complete breakdown in working relationship.

SIPTU argues that the Worker was not afforded fair procedures and natural justice by her Employer, she was not afforded a right to reply. Her good name was taken from her.

SIPTU submits that the TripAdvisor review and the undated letter should not have been brought to the Committee without an investigation taking place.

SIPTU is of the view that an undated letter with no address should not have been take in to account in the first place. It is clear that Mr T did not write the letter.

The Worker is of the opinion that once she stated that she had joined SIPTU that the Treasurer, Secretary and Chairman tried to find fault with everything she did in her work.

SIPTU claims that the Treasurer, Secretary and Chairman treated the Worker in a manner, which was not acceptable and caused her such levels of stress and upset that she felt she had no choice but to leave her employment.

SIPTU requests that this case if declared well founded and the Worker is awarded compensation for the manner she was treated by her Employer and the Employer’s failure to afford her natural justice and fair procedures.

The Worker read out a short submission. She stated that she felt bullied an isolated, stressed, lonely and had no confidence and very low self-esteem because of the actions of her Employer. She noted that she left a permanent job for a six-months contract. She said that she was very disappointed as she felt her character and her reputation was taken and she was not afforded a meeting to discuss same with the Trustees. She felt that nobody wanted to hear her side of the story and nobody cared. She said that there are very good procedures in the Club but they were not adhered to by the management.

The Employer submits that a letter was received by the Club from SIPTU on 29th January 2018, containing allegations of “special negative treatment” against the Worker by the Club Chairman and Honorary Secretary. In reply, the Club strongly rejected such allegations but stated that it would deal with them in accordance with its “Bullying and Harassment” policy, while noting that specific allegations of the alleged behaviour had not been made.

The Employer submits that a meeting was convened in 20th June 2018 to discuss the issues of allegations of negative treatment and bullying behaviour. The allegations were discussed in an open and frank manner with both parties strongly presenting their positions in the allegations.

The Employer submits that three further matters were discussed:

1.       A report on TripAdvisor complaining if the Worker’s attitude toward a group of visiting golfers,

2.       A letter allegedly sent by a member, Mr. T to the Club complaining of the Worker’s attitude to him,

3.       That these issues were reported to the Club’s Management Committee without being fully investigated.

The Employer submits that, in response, the Club representatives stated that they were obliged to inform the Management Committee of all correspondence received and, in this case, did so on an information basis only without voicing any criticism of the Worker or her alleged actions. The Employer argues that the Union, in its correspondence of 9th July 2018 accepted the obligation of the Club’s officers to inform the Management Committee of all correspondence received.

The Employer submits that, following the above meeting, correspondence was received from SIPTU on 26th June 2018 acknowledging that some progress had been made at the meeting on the 20th June and requesting that Mr T be contacted in writing in relation to his letter. It reiterated that the letter and the Trip Advisor report had not been fully investigated and requested an apology from the Club in this regard. The Employer argues that no further reference was made to any allegation of “inappropriate behaviour”.

The Employer replied to this letter on 28th June setting out its positions in relation to the meeting and the issues raised and discussed. A reply was received from SIPTU on 9th July stating that it felt that the Club had not adequately addressed the TripAdvisor and Mr T allegations and that it was, therefore referring the matters to the WRC.

The Employer submits that at no time was the Worker subject to inappropriate behaviour of any kind from any officer of the Club. The Employer argues that the union’s correspondence following the 20th June meeting refer only to Mr. T and TripAdvisor matters and does not again raise any allegations of inappropriate behaviour.

Moreover, the Employer claims that the correspondence in relation to the two complaints was read to the Management Committee in accordance with normal procedure. No opinion or judgement was conveyed by the Chairman or any other officer in relation to the correspondence. While the Worker was aware of the TripAdvisor allegation, having brought it to the attention of the Honorary Secretary, the allegedly Mr. T’s letter was shown to her as a matter of courtesy following the Management Committee meeting.

The Employer submits that, contrary to what is conveyed in the ’Complaint Specific Details or Statement’ in the WRC Complaint Form, no complaint was made by the Officers to the Club committee in relation to the Worker. No investigative or disciplinary process was instituted against the Worker in relation to the two complaints nor was it addressed with her in any manner, formal or informal, by the Club Officers that would suggest that disciplinary action was considered. In line with their responsibilities, the correspondence was relayed to the Management Committee and that was the end of that matter from their stand-point.

The Employer also submits that the Club Officers did not consider that a formal investigation in relation to the two complaints was warranted as no disciplinary action was contemplated.

The Employer’s considered view is that there is no basis to the claim that the Worker is pursuing and that the Club officials have at all times acted in a manner that was fair and fully in accordance with their responsibilities.

I have concluded my investigation into this dispute. I have given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.

The Worker is clearly upset by the events. At the adjudication hearing the Worker noted that such was the level of her distress that she left her permanent position for a six-months contract.

In essence, the Worker’s complaint relates to two matters, the customers’ complaints in respect of her attitude towards them and the alleged negative treatment by the Officers of the Club.

In relation to the customers’ complaints I find that, unfortunately, due to the nature of the business the Worker had been employed in and that of any service providing business which involves direct contact with customers, there is a scope for potential complaints. Service providers are exposed to comments and criticisms. With the ever-growing presence of the internet and websites, these are often expressed on-line. Criticisms, allegations and comments made online are often almost impossible to verify. I acknowledge that it might be difficult, if not impossible for employers such as the Club in the instant case to investigate and prove the allegations wrong or right, and/or to vindicate and clear the good name of an employee.

I note that in respect of the undated letter of complaint, the Employer confirmed that it would not make any further contact with Mr T who was alleged to have written the letter and who, from the beginning denied writing same. SIPTU acknowledged in the email of 9th July that the union has no difficulty with the fact that the Employer would not take any further action. However, SIPTU noted its difficulty with the fact that the letter “was not investigated properly at the time” and the Worker “was not afforded the opportunity to reply and, therefore, was denied natural justice and fair procedures.” It is my understanding that the Worker discussed the matter initially on 17th January 2018 with the Employer. The Worker was given a copy of the letter. The Employer and the Worker contacted Mr T and he stated that he knew nothing about any letter. Mr T subsequently viewed the letter and confirmed that it was not him who wrote it. The Worker conveyed the information to the Chairman who stated that the Club had no issue with the letter.

I accept that the Employer did not take any disciplinary action against the Worker. The complaints were received, presented to the Management Committee and, as far as the Employer was concerned there was no further action required.

I have some concerns in relation to the allegations made by the Worker of the negative treatment by the Officers of the Club. I note that the Worker did not make a formal allegation of bullying. Rather, she raised a grievance in relation to the inappropriate negative treatment she allegedly received from the Chairman and the Secretary of the Club. The Employer has detailed Grievance Procedure in place, copy of which was exhibited at the hearing. I find that the procedures were not exhausted in dealing with the Worker’s complaint. However, I note that the matter was put on the agenda of the meeting on 20th June 2018. Following the meeting on 20th June 2018 SIPTU wrote to the Employer stating that it feels that “some progress was made” but “we remain of the view that the above matter [anonymous letter] and the Trip Advisor review were not investigated properly by the Club and that because of this [the Complainant] has experiences unnecessary stress and upset. With a view to bringing this matter to a conclusion, [the Complainant] wishes to have this acknowledged by the Club and that an apology be forthcoming in this regard.”

The Employer replied to the letter on 28th June and said that “we regret any distress that [the Complainant] feels was caused in relation to the issues referred above and we assure you that it is our desire to build a positive working relationship with her into the future for which we would expect her co-operation.”

In response SIPTU wrote to the Employer on 9th July 2018 informing that the union feels that the matters of the two customers’ complaints were not addressed by the Club and that they now refer the matter to the WRC. Again, no issue was raised with the matter of the alleged negative treatment. The WRC complaint was received on 25th July 2018 and the Worker resigned her position on 4th August 2018.

I note that neither SIPTU nor the Worker revisited the matter of the alleged negative treatment after the meeting on 20th June 2018. Their subsequent correspondence related only to the matters of customers’ complaints.

In all of the circumstances of this dispute I find that the Employer engaged with the Worker and her union representative with a view to resolving the matter. I find that the Complainant requested an apology from the Employer and received a letter of “regret”. It is my opinion that this letter was an apology of sorts, if not quite forthright. The Worker subsequently resigned her position.

In view of the letter of regret issued to the Worker it is my opinion that, on balance, the Worker’s response of resignation was disproportionate and unfortunate. I find that it was not reasonable for the Worker to terminate her contract of employment and she should have exhausted the grievance procedures before contemplating resignation. Had she remained in the employment I would recommend the matter to be reverted and dealt with internally. As the Complainant has ceased her employment this option is no longer available.

In all of the circumstances of this dispute, I do not recommend in favour of the Worker.

Grievance-customer complaint