LCR21993

• This matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and Recommendation. On 18 September 2018 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-
  
  • " Having carefully reviewed the parties' submissions, the Investigation Report including the appendices I find that the Employer's procedures were followed and even if the assertion of the Worker was true (which I do not say it was) it would not taint the procedure as contended by the Worker. On balance, I am satisfied that the Worker was afforded a comprehensive and thorough process in respect of his complaints.
    
    Having considered the submissions of the parties I do not recommend concession of the Worker's claim.
    
    I have carefully considered the submissions made by the Parties to this dispute and I do not find in favour of the Worker in relation to this dispute."
  The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 27 September 2018 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

DECISION:

This is an appeal by a Worker of the Decision of an Adjudication Officer. The issue in dispute between the parties is the Worker’s claim that the investigation of his complaint of Bullying and Harassment was fundamentally flawed and that the findings cannot be relied on.

It is the Worker’s case that he lodged a formal complaint in accordance with his Employer’s Dignity at Work Policy in November 2016 relating to events that had occurred in the period 2012 to 2016. An external investigator was appointed to carry out the investigation in March 2017. He issued his findings in June 2016 which did not uphold the Worker’s complainants. The Worker appealed on the basis that the investigator did not interview a number of witnesses identified by the Worker. It is the Worker’s contention that failure to interview these witnesses meant it was impossible for him to succeed with his complaint and therefore the investigative process was fundamentally flawed.

The Worker’s appeal was due to be heard on the 11^thJuly 2017. During that meeting it was agreed that the matter would be processed through an external facilitated process. There were a number of meetings as part of that process, but the engagements were ultimately unsuccessful.

The Worker’s appeal was then heard, and the following decision was issued.

“…I found that there were justifiable reasons as to why not all parties and or events referred to by the Worker were interviewed and I have set out below examples of same”

It is the Employer’s position that they followed their Company procedure and that the complaint was fully addressed. They appointed an independent external party to investigate the complaint. The outcome of which was that the complaint was not upheld. The appeal was paused at the request of the Worker’s representative to allow for external facilitation which unfortunately was not successful. A detailed appeal was carried out which clearly set out why certain witnesses had not been interviewed and demonstrated that they were not witnesses to the actual events being investigated. The Worker has failed to identify any failure by the Employer to follow their own policy. The Employer has gone beyond what is required of them in terms of fair procedure.

The Court having carefully read all the submissions and listened to the oral submissions on the day finds that the Employer’s procedures were followed and that any concerns that may have arisen in relation to witnesses not being interviewed were fully addressed in the outcome of the appeal. In those circumstances the Worker’s claim fails.

The Decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld.

The Court so decides.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Louise O'Donnell
TH______________________
20 May 2019Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Therese Hickey, Court Secretary.