ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00017131
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Worker | A Third Level College |
Representatives | SIPTU |
|
Dispute:
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-00022211-001 | 27/09/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 12/12/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.
Background:
The worker claims that the employer did not implement the findings of an investigation report. |
Summary of Worker’s Case:
The worker has worked with the employer since 1990.
She raised a grievance in 2017 under the Dignity at Work policy in relation to her supervisor Ms A.
It was investigated by an external investigator in April 2018 who issued a report on 29th June 2019.
The report detailed that Ms A “has a case to answer in terms of repeated breaches by her of (the worker’s) right to dignity at work in terms of how she was treated by her supervisor”.
The report went on to say that “the situation between these two employees is untenable as a working relationship”.
The worker detailed that while Ms A is no longer the worker’s supervisor, Ms A works upstairs from her in the same area and the worker works in an area downstairs but that her understanding is that Ms should have been completely removed from the work area. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The employer confirmed that an investigation took place into the allegations raised by the worker and that it was investigated by an external investigator.
As a result of that report Ms A’s supervisory responsibilities were removed and both workers, while remaining in the same area have no contact with each other as one works upstairs and the other works downstairs.
The employer had offered the worker an opportunity to transfer to another department but she declined. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The worker is unhappy with how the employer has implemented the report of the external investigator and wishes for the removal from the area of Ms A as well as compensation for the manner in which she was treated. While I note there was some tardiness by the employer in referring the issue on to the external investigator, I find that they have implemented the terms of the report. The worker and Ms A are not in contact with each other, nor does Ms have supervisory responsibility for the worker.
I recommend that should the worker continue to be unhappy with the current working arrangements, she should apply to the employer for a suitable transfer. |
Decision:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I recommend that should the worker continue to be unhappy with the current working arrangements, she should apply to the employer for a suitable transfer. |
Dated: 30th April 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Key Words:
Industrial relations act |