Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{A Worker}

{A State Body}

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-00017294-001

06/02/2018

The Worker has been employed with the Respondent since 1981. He was been based at the same office for almost 20 years.

The Worker complains regarding treatment by the Respondent’s HR Manager. The HR Manager investigated a complaint from a colleague which resulted in a very serious sanction against the Worker and permanent removal from his office where he was based for most of 40 years worked. The Worker believes the investigation was biased and failed to take into account his witness evidence. This has caused the Worker huge stress and has contributed to a serious deterioration in his health.

In 2013 the Worker took up a new position within the Respondent with 2 of his colleagues. This upset some of his colleagues who lost regular deliveries as a consequence. There was an investigation into allegations that all deliveries were not being made by a colleague. The Worker was blamed and says some of his colleagues who were disgruntled about his role began to wage a campaign against him. The Complainant and the 2 Workers who changed role wrote to the HR Manager about what was occurring including times and dates. Three witnesses involved in the complaint were interviewed and the 3 Workers who made the complaint.

In November 2015, without warning the Worker was informed that he was being transferred to another location. The following morning the Worker called in sick and complied with the usual protocols but the HR Manager instructed the local manager to treat him absent without leave. Following the appeal hearing the compulsory transfer was frozen and the Worker was allowed resume work in his office in January 2016.

Subsequently the Worker complained on a number of occasions that his mail was being deliberately missorted. His Manager viewed the CCTV and sent reports to the HR Manager but no action was ever taken. Following a verbal spat with a colleague in August 2016, the Worker was called into HR and the HR Manager reinstated the sanction of transfer.

The Worker went on sick-leave in November 2016 and was taken off sick-pay again by the HR Manager. Sick pay was restored 13 weeks later following the intervention of his Union and medical reports. Following discussions, the Worker returned to work in another office May 2018 however, he was not given the option to apply for a duty in the most recent competition.

The Worker has suffered financial loss as a result of his absence on sick-leave, which will also impact on his pension. He believes his ill health has been brought on by his treatment by the Respondent.

The Worker received a second level warning in November 2015. He claims that the issuing of the disciplinary sanction in the circumstances is unfair and is based on personal dislike by the HR Manager.

He made complaints under the Dignity at Work policy against various colleagues and his Supervisor in the Depot. Arising out of the investigation of these complaints, the Worker was asked to address matters of concern, which were then dealt with through the Disciplinary Procedure.

The Worker was issued with a second level written warning in November 2015 for offensive and uncooperative behaviour towards his Supervisor and behaviour adversely impacting on the workplace. This sanction included compulsory relocation to another depot. As a consequence of the warning the Worker was not eligible to participate in the regional duty competition for 18 months. Following expiry of the warning, the Worker could apply for any vacant duties in the Dublin region, save at his former Depot.  A second level warning remains on the Workers record for 18 months. The following day the Worker was absent on sick-leave.

The disciplinary sanction was appealed and on an exceptional basis the Worker’s reassignment to another Depot was deferred if the Worker adhered to three commitments relating to respectful working.

In August 2016 there was a complaint made by a co-worker of Worker. The Worker was interviewed in relation to the complaint and was informed that the sanction of re-location was being reactivated.

Thereafter the enquiries progressed within its agreed disciplinary process. Separately, the Worker’s sick-absence was pursued by the HR Manager. The Chief Medical Officer had assessed the Worker as fit for work, and the provision of sick-pay was no longer acceptable. Finally, after a significant period on sick-leave the Worker resumed work in another Depot.

I have heard the evidence of both parties and considered their written submissions in relation to the dispute.

The Worker has a number of complaints regarding his treatment by the HR Manager.

1.       He was not given copies of statements used to transfer him from the office to another office following the incident in August 2016.

2.       Despite request he has not been given a copy of the full minutes of the meeting on 5 September 2016.

3.       He alleges the HR Manager claimed that he eradicated the problem in the office, after the Worker’s transfer.

4.       Despite the fact that he was a member of staff in the new office, he was not given an opportunity to apply for a duty in the most recent competition.

5.       The HR Manager ignored advice from the Chief Medical Office that the Worker would be fit for work if progress was made on this work concerns. The HR Manager decided himself a transfer resolved these concerns.

6.       The HR Manager never acted on any of the concerns raised by the Worker at the behaviour of some of his colleagues.

I have carefully reviewed the material opened to me regarding the investigation of the incidents in 2015 and 2016. The is an extensive background of correspondence and material. The Worker’s complaints against colleagues resulted in the Worker receiving a second level warning under the disciplinary procedure in 2015. Following the appeal, the sanction was upheld but the Worker’s transfer was deferred exceptionally if the Worker adhered to commitments to specific action including not to engage in any activity or behaviour that has the potential to adversely affect the work environment of colleagues. The warning applied for 18 months.

Some 8 months later an incident occurred in August 2016. As part of the investigation, the Worker admitted making the offensive statement to a colleague and by way of explanation set out a background of difficulties with the colleague. This was considered by the HR Manager who said his conduct was not acceptable. Two of the background issues had been raised previously by the Worker to his manager at the time they occurred. If an issue was unresolved the Worker had the option to escalate his grievance which he had not done. He reminded the worker of his obligation to treat colleagues with respect, and that background issues could not be adequate justification for an act. He noted that the Worker did not retract the statement or try to make amends.

The transfer of the Worker to another office that took place after the incident in August 2016 was due to breach of the terms of the commitment made by the Worker which the Worker had accepted. There is no evidence of any bias or unfair treatment of the Worker by the HR Manager in conducting the investigation and disciplinary process of the Worker. The Respondent say they have furnished all written statements prepared to the Worker. They did not keep a record of discussions with other witnesses interviewed as they did not have direct knowledge of the events. The Respondent says the minutes of the meeting of 5 September 2016 were not amended to take account of the Workers proposed changes.

The Worker complains that the HR Manager did not act on his complaints against colleagues. However, the HR Manager investigated the Workers complaints against colleagues in 2015 and this resulted in disciplinary action against the Worker. I have not been furnished with a formal outcome in relation to the complaints made by the Worker in 2015 and I recommend that a formal outcome be prepared and furnished to the Worker.

In a letter of 10th August 2016, the Worker outlines 3 background incidents with his colleague as an explanation for the incident. The HR Manager pointed out that 2 of these incidents were already raised by the Worker at the time with his Manager and were addressed then. He advised if these were not resolved to the Worker’s satisfaction these complaints could have been escalated through the grievance procedure and his actions were not acceptable. The Worker states that reports against colleagues about their behaviour have not been addressed by the HR Manager. If that is so, the Worker has the option to escalate these through the grievance procedure.

Despite the fact that Worker was a member of staff in the new office, he says he was not given an opportunity to apply for a duty in the most recent competition. He was out on sick-leave at the time the competition took place. His representatives say that it is usual for staff to be notified of a duty competition while out on leave and this was not done. The Worker participated in a recent duty competition since his return to work.

I do not uphold the Workers complaints regarding his treatment by the HR Manager nor the Respondent as there is no evidence of bias or unfair treatment. I do not recommend any further action is taken by the Respondent.

I find no evidence of bias or unfair treatment of the Worker by the Respondent and its HR Manager. I recommend that a formal outcome be prepared in relation to the Workers complaints made in 2015 to be furnished to the Worker. I do not uphold the complaints of the Worker which fail, nor do I recommend any further action be taken by the Respondent.

Bias, unfair treatment, complaints not upheld