ADJ-00020075

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Security/Maintenance Person

A Community Body

Representatives

  Self-Represented

 Self-Represented

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-00026599-001

27/02/2019

The Complainant alleged he was being bullied and intimidated at work by his Supervisor.

The Complainant is employed on a Community Employment Scheme along with 24 other people and his work involves security and maintenance.  The Complainant commenced employment on September 4^th, 2017.

At the Hearing the Complainant submitted a very detailed chronology of events and issues at work. These can be summarised as follows;

On December 10^th, 2018, after 15 months at work he was told he was doing his job wrong and to sit in a windowless basement kitchen and wait for instructions. He told his Supervisor he could not do his job that way as it involved monitoring non-staff who entered the building and assisting parents when they were collecting their children and that he would not be following the Supervisor’s instruction to stay in the Kitchen.

The following Monday he was summoned to the Supervisor office and was told by his Supervisor shouting and in an aggressive way “I thought I told you stay in the Kitchen”. He told the Supervisor again he would not be complying with the instruction as he could not do his job that way. He stated the Supervisor then started roaring and shouting at him and that he would start disciplinary procedures against the Complainant. The Complainant emailed the Supervisor after work and warned him not to try intimidating him again. In the email the Complainant voiced a view that because he had voiced a view previously that a Ms. X was getting special privileges since she joined that this was the reason he was being moved to the Kitchen.

On January 8^th, 2019 the Complainant was given a verbal warning which he did not accept, he felt had the air of a Kangaroo court, was not allowed representation and no fair procedure was applied to him. The Supervisor claimed at the meeting that he had not seen the above email from the Complainant.

The Complainant made a formal complaint to the Board about his Supervisor and the Board were due to have a special meeting to discus it on January 16^th, 2019.  The Complainant advised his father was a member of the Board.

On January 11^{th, 2019} at 11.45am the Supervisor and a Board Member attempted to give the Complainant a written warning on the pubic footpath outside the company premises. He was providing security for a public event in the building at the time. The Complainant was summoned to the Supervisors office several times but did not attend as he had security duties to attend to. The Complainant did call the Supervisor, but the Supervisor did not respond and the Complainant took this as the matter was not urgent.  At 12.30 pm the Supervisor and a Board Member approached the Complainant again on the public footpath outside the buildings and the Supervisor waved his arm up and down and shouted at the Complainant “your doing nothing standing around here and your supposed to do as your told, you were told to come to the office and you didn’t”.  The Complainant received a written warning in the post to his home on January 14^th, 2019 and he again wrote to the Board and made complaints about his treatment and his concern the Supervisor was trying to dismiss the Complainant. The Chairperson of the Board issued an instruction that all disciplinary actions against the Complainant should stop. The Board attempted to set up independent mediation, but the Supervisor declined to attend.

The Complainant became aware of a complaint by Ms. X against him for bullying and he felt this was fabricated by the Supervisor.

The Complainant feels he was bullied and intimated by his Supervisor.

The Respondent made a brief verbal submission.

The Respondent denied any bullying an intimidation.

The Respondent stated the Complainant was spending time in the office area talking to people and the purpose of the Scheme was to get people back to work.

The Respondent denied asking the Complainant to stay in the Kitchen.

The instructions to the Complainant were in line with his duties.

There was confusion in setting up meetings to resolve the issues involved.

The Complainant refused legitimate instructions from his Supervisor.

The Industrial relations element of this dispute relate to the following key issues;

What are the Complainants key duties and where should he be located

The appropriateness and procedure regarding the issuing of a verbal and written warning to the Complainant

The working relationship between the Complainant and his Supervisor

The issuing of a complaint by Ms. X against the Complainant

The allegation of bullying and intimidation of the Complainant by his Supervisor.

While the above issues are the core IR issues there are also other non-IR issues involved in the case. The matter was slightly, but not critically, impacted by the fact the Complainant’s father was a Member of the Community Scheme Board and the poor relationship between the Complainant and his Supervisor.

During and in between the two Hearings the Respondent withdrew the verbal and written warnings by email so the issue of the specific disciplinary actions from an IR perspective was resolved. Albeit the Complainant felt they should never have been issued in the first place.

The key duties and where the Complainant should be located was not resolved. Both parties having strong and differing views about where the Complainant should be while at work.

The Board Members present at the second Hearing made an offer to the Complainant that he no longer reports to the Supervisor and that he would report directly to a nominated Board member with Management experience. The Complainant declined this offer. Also, at the second Hearing an offer that things reverting to normal and with the parties engaging in a trial period with a new reporting relationship of three months was discussed but not agreed. The Respondent also requested that the allegation of the Supervisor giving Ms. X preferential treatment be withdrawn by the Complainant, which the Complainant was unwilling to do. The Complainant also sought a guarantee of a third year in the Scheme which the Respondent was not in a position to guarantee.

The fact that the Complainant reported to a Supervisor who reported to the Complainants father may or may not have been a contributory factor to this situation and certainly the Complainants refused to attend to meet his Supervisor on January 11th, despite a few requests was unusual. Also, the issuing of the written warning in a public place was not a professional act by the Respondent.

Regarding the complaint by Ms. X, the Board confirmed one had been received but that it had been shredded and a copy no longer existed so the matter, in the Board’s view, was closed.

Having spent two Hearings with the parties and despite what I felt were reasonable gestures by the Board to resolve the issues, the issue of where the Complainant should be located and his allegation of bullying and intimidation remain unresolved.

 I recommend that the Complainant put his very specific complaints of how he felt he was bullied and intimidated into a formal written complaint and the parties agree a mutually agreed third party to investigate the matters raised in that complaint. The Complainant should also be very specific about what resolutions he is seeking by raising these complaints as this is an IR issue between the parties and the Complainant must clearly set out what he is trying to achieve by any investigation process. I also suggest that the Board appoint one of its members with management experience to lead the Boards involvement in the investigation. I am very conscious that this is not a normal situation of employee/employer but the Complainant is fully entitled to have his claims of bullying and intimidation investigated.

It has emerged after the second Hearing that the Complainants employment is likely to terminate in the next two months or so, but he does not appear to be singled out for individual treatment in this respect. While this may, or may not, be in any way related to the issues involved in the case I highly recommend that the parties proceed to have the matters for investigation completed within the next four weeks.