Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

IT Employee

Online accommodation provider

Representatives

Barbara Johnston ERservices

Linda Hynes Lewis Silkin Ireland

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-00029007-001

12/06/2019

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

CA-00029007-002

12/06/2019

The Complainant was represented, and I was provided with a comprehensive submission together with supporting documentation. I also heard the Complainant’s quite compelling evidence.

The Respondent did not arrive at the hearing and I am satisfied that the Respondent was on notice of the hearing.

I have carefully considered the evidence adduced in the course of this hearing. The Complainant has been employed by the Respondent since the 4th January 2015. Under the terms his contract  his salary is reviewed under the Company’s compensation review process.  

The Company’s compensation review process is rooted in an annual process used by Airbnb to increase remuneration, manage promotion and allocate company shares. The process is made up of two assessments, one done mid-year and the other done at the end of the year. The results of these assessments are combined to give the outcome for the year.  

There are five levels to the Company’s compensation review process with two different paths, the ‘What’ you did and the ‘How’ you did it. The ‘What’ is measurable – the ‘How’ is based on peer and manager opinions of the employees application of Core Values and how peer reviewers rate you.  

The Complainant’s experiences over the past can be summarised as follows:

The last 3 reviews have been conducted under his current manager. On all three occasions this manager has reduced the Complainant’s overall percentage mark based on her perception of his behaviour.   The Complainant believes that this is personal and does not believe that her perceptions are fair to him.

The Complainant filed a grievance with HR/TALENT who issued findings that did not support his claims. The Complainant does not believe that HR/TALENT investigated his grievance in a fair and open manner. He believes the focus of their investigation were two incidents that occurred following the December review and that their judgment was influenced by these incidents.

Following a further poor review in June 2018 the Complainant filed another complaint. He felt that the selection of a peer reviewer by a manager was very unusual, he had never come across it before. He also felt that the use of a peer reviewer that he had not worked with for any significant time during the assessment period was unfair.

The Complainant was becoming frustrated at the failure of HR/TALENT to treat him fairly and he took the path of disengaging from his Manager. He expressed his concern at being managed by a person who was clearly biased towards himself. The Complainant received a disciplinary sanction of a written warning to remain on his record for 1 year. He appealed this sanction but agreed to a reduced sanction of a verbal warning in exchange for withdrawing his appeal. The Complainant wanted an end to the situation

In September 2018 the Complainant applied for a temporary position on another team. This temporary transfer was extended to October and then to November. Finally he was told it was to be extended to December.

In early November 2018, the Complainant met with AA and was removed from the “RB” program and returned to the team managed by his initial Manager for his end of 2018 review.

The Complainant’s review from the RB team manager was extremely positive and the rating submitted by the Team Manager was ‘Exceeds All Expectations’. HR/Talent did not agree with the rating and changed it to the final rating of ‘Meets All Expectations’. This change was driven by HR/TALENT as the Complainant had not engaged with his manager and they felt that anyone with this behaviour should not receive a rating of ‘Exceeds All Expectations’. As this directly impacted on the Complainant’s salary, promotion and share allocation this was an indirect sanction for behaviour.   The Complainant had already been sanctioned with a verbal warning and was never informed that any additional sanction would be imposed.

The Complainant asked for a third party independent investigation into his issues. The Complainant committed to accepting the outcome of that investigation as an end to all matters. The Company decided not to move forward with this approach.

The Complainant has asked me to particularly consider a number of matters raised:-

That the company’s failure to create an open and transparent review process has created a situation where he was allowed to be bullied and penalised by individuals and managers who were compiling his ratings.

That no explanation or clearly documented procedure is available to employees to allow them to understand where the ratings come from or what they have to do to achieve them.

That the failure of HR/Talent to diligently review his grievance on how his December 2017 ratings was reached did not uphold his rights under S.I. No. 146 of 2000

That the reduction of his rating in December 2018 was a sanction without the due process which he is entitled to under S.I. No. 146 of 2000

That the company’s dismissing of his recorded grievances denied him his rights under S.I. No. 146 of 2000.

That the actions of Mr AA in removing him from the RB team to put him back under the authority of the first Manager was bullying and intended to directly influence the outcome of the Complainant’s December 2018 review.

That the only person the complainant worked directly with that had a problem with him was Ms GM the Manager. This fact was never considered by HR/Talent.

That in 2018 Mr Robins was seconded to two teams managed by two different managers. Both of these managers gave the complainant very positive feedback.  

His feedback from the RB Team is equally positive.

That his peers in both his 2017 and 2018 ratings review gave him extremely positive feedback.

I accept that despite the issues that have arisen between the Complainant and his employer that he still enjoys working for his employer and does not wish to resigning his position.   The Complainant is of the opinion that the current conflict between himself and the Company is limited to a small number of persons and is not reflective of the wider population of the Company.

I fully accept the merits of the Complainant’s dispute with the Employer. On the face of it, a seemingly visceral dislike of the Complainant by his Manager Ms. M has resulted in an arbitrary and harsh rating which has had knock on consequences. All efforts to have this process reviewed or explained have been re-buffed by the Employer. The consequences have been far reaching and apparently without end.

I have had sight of the positive peer reviews which appear to have been ignored by the Employer in the process of assessment.

The processes being applied are clearly not transparent and both management and HR have failed to disclose what criteria is in operation which has created an impression that ratings are being handed out arbitrarily or in line favouritism.

I accept that the employer has not turned up to refute any of the evidence presented by the Complainant but am satisfied that the Respondent was on notice of today’s hearing date.

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

CA-00029007-001

I fully accept the merits of the Complainant’s dispute. On the face of it the Complainant has been treated very badly by his Employer. I strongly recommend that the Employer acquiesce to allowing an agreed on independent Third Party investigate the matters raised and in particular allow the Complainant to formulate his Grievances to be investigated. I recommend this course of action in the hope of restoring faith in the integrity of this workplace.

I would recommend that any such Investigation would include (though not necessarily be limited to) the following Terms of Reference:

That the company’s failure to create an open and transparent review process has created a situation where he was allowed to be bullied and penalised by individuals and managers who were compiling his ratings.

That no explanation or clearly documented procedure is available to employees to allow them to understand where the ratings come from or what they have to do to achieve them.

That the failure of HR/Talent to diligently review his grievance on how his December 2017 ratings was reached did not uphold his rights under S.I. No. 146 of 2000

That the reduction of his rating in December 2018 was a sanction without the due process which he is entitled to under S.I. No. 146 of 2000

That the company’s dismissing of his recorded grievances denied him his rights under S.I. No. 146 of 2000.

That the actions of Mr AA in removing him from the badger team to put him back under the authority of the first Manager was bullying and intended to directly influence the outcome of the Complainant’s December 2018 review.

That the only person the complainant worked directly with that had a problem with him was Ms BB the Manager.   This fact was never considered by HR/Talent.

That in 2018 the complainant was seconded to two teams managed by two different managers. Both of these managers gave the complainant very positive feedback.  

That the Complainant’s feedback from the RB Team is equally positive.

That his peers in both his 2017 and 2018 ratings review gave him extremely positive feedback.

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

CA-00029007-002

I fully accept the merits of the Complainant’s dispute. On the face of it the Complainant has been treated very badly by his Employer. I strongly recommend that the Employer acquiesce to allowing an agreed on independent Third Party investigate the matters raised and in particular allow the Complainant to formulate his Grievances to be investigated. I recommend this course of action in the hope of restoring faith in the integrity of this workplace.

I would recommend that any such Investigation would include (but not necessarily be limited to) Terms of Reference:

That the company’s failure to create an open and transparent review process has created a situation where he was allowed to be bullied and penalised by individuals and managers who were compiling his ratings.

That no explanation or clearly documented procedure is available to employees to allow them to understand where the ratings come from or what they have to do to achieve them.

That the failure of HR/Talent to diligently review his grievance on how his December 2017 ratings was reached did not uphold his rights under S.I. No. 146 of 2000

That the reduction of his rating in December 2018 was a sanction without the due process which he is entitled to under S.I. No. 146 of 2000

That the company’s dismissing of his recorded grievances denied him his rights under S.I. No. 146 of 2000.

That the actions of Mr AA in removing him from the badger team to put him back under the authority of the first Manager was bullying and intended to directly influence the outcome of the Complainant’s December 2018 review.

That the only person Mr Robins worked directly with that had a problem with him was Ms GM the Manager.   This fact was never considered by HR/Talent.

That in 2018 the complainant was seconded to two teams managed by two different managers. Both of these managers gave the complainant very positive feedback.  

That the Complainant’s feedback from the RB Team is equally positive.

That his peers in both his 2017 and 2018 ratings review gave him extremely positive feedback.