Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

General Operative

County Council

Representatives

Andrea Cleere SIPTU

Eamonn Hunt, LGMA

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-00028162-001

03/05/2019

The Complainant contends that Management failed to address a complaint of bullying.

The Complainant contends that he was subjected to bullying and harassment by a colleague from in or around 8th May 2017.   He reported this to Management who failed to follow up directly but advised him to contact Human Resources. He wrote a note to HR on 11th May outlining his complaint that he had been threatened by his colleague.   This note was acknowledged by HR stating the matter had been referred back to his Line Manager.   The behaviour towards the Complainant escalated in October 2017 when on 19th October, the Complainant was nearly knocked down by the colleague Mr C. This was witnessed by the General Services Supervisor Mr G who reported the incident to the Senior Engineer Mr T. No action was taken regarding this incident. More incidences of verbal abuse and intimidation by the colleague against the Complainant continued to occur but no action or investigation was undertaken by Management.   In November 2017 the Complainant was informed that he was being moved to another area. He did not want to move and felt he was being targeted for having made a complaint.   He protested and was told by HR that, in line with policy the status quo would remain while the issue was being disputed. In February 2018 he was told to go to the new area. He went out on sick leave with work related stress from 12th February to 10th April 2018. During this absence he was not referred to Medmark and no effort was made to enquire what was causing the stress. He has been working in the new area since April 2018 but the move has disproportionately disadvantaged him financially and through his earning capacity to work in an acting up position which he had regular opportunity before he moved. It appears that despite the Respondent’s position re moves, that the Complainant was in fact the only employee to move at the time. Also, it appears that new employees have been taken on in the area the Complainant formerly worked in. He wants to move back to his original area and many efforts have been made by his Union Official to try and resolve matters from October 2018 to May 2019, when the dispute had to be referred to the WRC.   At one point, it was advised that an internal investigator had been appointed but this never materialised. The Union and the Complainant did attend a grievance meeting about his issues on 8th May 2019, but no outcome was received.                                                       It is argued that Management has failed to demonstrate duty of care towards the Complainant.                       It is also argued that they did not comply with their policies on dignity at work and grievances.                   The Complainant seeks that his complaints are investigated in line with the Respondent’s policies and that he be returned to his original workplace and receive compensation for the treatment.

In May 2017 the Complainant made a complaint against another employee which was acknowledged and the matter was forwarded to the relevant Line Manager for attention in accordance with Policy and Procedures. The Manager sought to resolve the matter informally between the parties however this was not successful. The Respondent then appointed an internal investigator.   However the Complainant went on sick leave in February 2018 before the process commenced. He was contacted to advise that the process would commence when he returned to work. He was requested to contact HR on his return to work whereupon it would be arranged to have the investigation process commence. However, no response was received from him on his return to work.                                       Prior to going on sick leave, the Complainant was reassigned from one area to another. Such reassignments are normal across the sector and the Complainant would have been one of a number of staff reassigned.   At the time SIPTU on behalf of the Complainant made representations to Management to the effect that the Complainant did not wish to be reassigned and considered it to be a reaction to his complaint against the other staff member.  Management set out the background to the reassignment of several staff members including the Complainant and the Union subsequently accepted the position and confirmed that the Complainant understood the position.       At the time the Management understood the matter of the complaint was not progressing in view of the Complainant’s lack of contact with HR upon his return from sick leave. A meeting was held on 8th May 2019 where SIPTU requested an external investigator be appointed to examine the Complainant’s complaints. Management are satisfied to proceed with an investigation of the complaints.   However, it finds the approach confusing, as it had arranged in good faith to meet on 8th May, yet the referral to the WRC took place on 3rd May 2019, stating “my trade union has tried to engage but still nothing has happened”.   The referral of the complaint to the WRC was premature. However, the matter of investigation is accepted but an internal investigator is the norm and the Respondent does not accept that the Complainant can object to an internal investigator.   It is also submitted that reassignment of staff is within the remit of the Chief executive as provided for under the relevant legislation and it is refuted that there is any link between the Complainant’s reassignment and his complaint.  

I note that no outcome of the 8th May 2019 grievance meeting has been advised to the Complainant and his Union representative. During the course of evidence a very serious allegation was highlighted in relation to a “near miss” or deliberate attempt to cause serious harm to the Complainant. I find that this alone should have resulted in swift action by the Respondent in relation to investigation. I note that the Complainant and his Union representative have been trying to have his issues investigated and dealt with since May 2017 and this is an unacceptable long period. I note the Complainant was on sick leave during February to April 2018 and the matter was not re-instigated until October 2018. Some of this delay was not entirely the fault of Management.                                                                However, in order to bring this long running issue to conclusion I recommend the following:

-          The outcome of the 8th May 2019 grievance be communicated to the Complainant and his Union representative without delay.

-          An Investigator be appointed immediately to examine the Complainant’s complaints.   The Union should agree to an Internal Investigator and Management should agree the terms of reference with the Union.

-          The matter of the Complainant’s transfer request back to his original area should be kept under active review and may be appropriate to be considered in the context of whatever findings are made in the investigation.

-          Due to the lengthy delays and the obvious stress caused to the Complainant, the Respondent should offer him a compensatory sum of €1,000.