ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00015341

Parties:

Complaint:

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 25/04/2019

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

Background:

Brief Summary of Complainant’s Case:

Health & Safety

In 2016 a new manager DH was appointed. He took issue with the Complainant and she had to explain herself all the times which she hadn’t to do before. On one occasion she sent a supporting email to a colleague and it referred to “don’t behave like a …. Her manager spoke to her about this and in particular the use of three dots. He said that these three dots mean something in Ireland. She explained her intentions to him. Nothing came of this, the meeting ended and no disciplinary outcome took place.

Credit Policy Issue

She stated that she holds a Master Degree in Economics and is a Qualified Financial Adviser. She did not give credit to a potential customer because his income was derived from gambling. She did not agree to extend that credit. Her manager overruled her. She could not accept the manager’s decision and was in complete conflict with him. She reported this to her manager’s manager. But there was no response. She believes that her manager was eager to achieve his targets. She emailed her manager’s manager requesting a change of manager, expressing her concerns about the implication of these matters on her health. She got no reply.

Bullying & harassment complaint

She made a bullying and harassment complaint, but it was investigated and not upheld. She appealed the outcome to the WRC and it was referred to mediation/conciliation. The manager gave an undertaking at that meeting in the WRC not to bully and harass her again.

She also claimed victimisation but there was no outcome. For the next three weeks after the mediation meeting her manager kept his distance however then he started to pick on her. She asked him why he was doing this.

She made a second protected disclosure to the Head of HR and the Chief Executive on 26th October 2017 about internal banking behaviour. Her disclosure was acknowledged and she was advised that the matter would be investigated. It was investigated but her complaint was not upheld.

Damage to the Environment

She stated that the bank loaned money contrary to the credit controls of the Central Bank. The Bank was lending money to people that inevitably would lead to another economic crash.

She made a third protective disclosure in January 2018 to the Taoiseach, Minister for Finance and the Central Bank.

The Central Bank investigated it. They sought details of the complaint however there was no outcome. The Minister for Finance replied regarding the Department’s approach to the handling of the crash and its future. She got a similar response from the Taoiseach’s office.

Destruction of information and concealment of information

She stated that the Bank held meetings behind closed doors and no record was kept.

She stated that she didn’t appeal the outcomes as she understood that the whistleblowing policy was to appeal to the HR Director. She stated that she had been studying during this time and had not enough time to read all the facts. She was not given enough time to prepare. The Bank was not objective. She believed that the Bank had not sufficient interest in its employees.

Penalisation

After the first disclosure in July 2017 she applied for promotion as Performance Team Leader, but she was not shortlisted. She stated that the Bank has no objective method of selecting personnel. After the second disclosure she was suspended for one-month, 1st November to 1st December 2017. She was referred to the company doctor during the suspension. Her manager told her to go home and not return until she was well again. There was no outcome to the doctor’s examination/report. She returned to work on 1st December 2017. On 26th January 2018 she was placed on garden leave until she was dismissed in October 2018. There were reports used against her of refusing to leave a manager’s desk and refusal to leave the Bank, these were trivial matters. She refused to attend hearings in Dublin and sought to respond in writing only. She eventually attended a meeting in July. She was ultimately dismissed in October 2018.

She believes that these were acts of penalisation for making protected disclosures. She is seeking compensation.

Brief Summary of Respondent’s Case:

Findings and Conclusions:

I note that it was accepted by the Respondent that the Complainant had made protected disclosures.

I note that detailed investigations were carried out, details provided, and it was found that her concerns were not valid and that no relevant wrongdoing was found.

I note that the Respondent has an Ombudsman, external to the Bank to hear appeals from such situations.

I note that the Complainant was given the right to appeal to this external Ombudsman, but she did not take up that offer.

I find that the Respondent carried out a detailed investigation and arrived at a clear outcome and her complaints were not upheld.

I note that she declined to appeal the outcomes.

I find that her decision not to appeal the outcomes concludes the matter.

I find that the Respondent acted in a fair and reasonable manner.

I find that the Respondent has no case to answer in this matter.

2)Bullying & Harassment

I note that the Complainant made a bullying and harassment complaint.

I note that this was investigated by the Respondent and was not upheld.

I note that the Complainant appealed this to Conciliation in the WRC, not mediation as suggested.

I note the conflict of evidence regarding the outcome.

I find that the Respondent carried out a detailed investigation and did not uphold the complaint.

I find that there was no outcome from the Conciliation meeting in the WRC.

I find that it would have been more appropriate for the Complainant to refer a complaint to the Adjudication Services of the WRC, not Conciliation.

I find that the Complainant failed to properly manage this grievance and failed to follow the grievance procedure.

I find that the Respondent acted in a fair and reasonable manner.

Penalisation

Penalisation occurs when a party acts in retaliation to another party carrying out an act.

(1) Promotion

In this case the Complainant claims that she was penalised in not getting shortlisted in a promotional selection process.

I find that the shortlisting was carried out by a Recruitment Team who had no connection or knowledge of the Complainant’s history.

I found no evidence to support her complaint that the Bank retaliated in not short listing her for promotion.

(2) Disciplinary sanction

I find that the Complainant did not supply any evidence that of a sanction that could be construed as a retaliatory measure.

(3) Suspension from work/paid leave

1st November to 1st December 2017.

I find that the Complainant was placed on paid leave as the Respondent had concerns about her well- being.

I found no evidence to support a view that the paid leave from 1st November to 1st December 2017 was in retaliation to her making a protected disclosure.

Garden leave January 2018

I find that investigations commenced in January 2018. I note that she refused give assurances that she wouldn’t make comments about customer accounts and so she was placed on garden leave.

I found no evidence to support the view that this was in retaliation to her making a protected disclosure.

(2) Change of work hours

I find that no evidence was produced to support this claim

(3) Demotion

I find that no evidence was produced to support this claim

(4) Breaking HR Health & safety

I find that no evidence was produced to support this claim.

External Complaints

I find that issues pertaining to complaints to the Minister for Finance, Taoiseach and possible economic downturns are not within the remit of this workplace investigation.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

For the above stated reasons, I have decided that this complaint was not well founded and so it fails.

Dated:   21/06/19

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly

Key Words: