ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference:
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Shop Assistant | A Convenience Store |
Representatives |
| Mr. Nathy Groarke |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
CA-00029617-001 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing:
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969 (as amended by the Workplace Relations Act 2015 so as to include Adjudication Officers) and where a trade dispute (not specifically precluded by Sect. 13) has been identified and has been referred to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission who in turn refers such a dispute to an Adjudication Officer, so appointed, for the purpose of having the said dispute heard in similar manner as has been set out in Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act which allows the Adjudication Officer to Investigate a matter raised. The Adjudication Officer will additionally and where appropriate hear all relevant oral evidence of the parties and their witnesses and will take into account any and all documentary or other evidence which may be tendered in the course of the hearing.
Having confirmed that the Complainant herein is a Worker within the meaning of the Acts and Having conducted the Investigation as described in Section 13, I, as the so appointed Adjudication Officer, am bound to make a recommendation which will set forth my opinion on the merits of the within dispute.
Under Section 36(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990, any party may object to an investigation by an Adjudication Officer of the dispute raised in the complaint form. The Respondent employer must indicate any such objection in writing within 21 days of the notification of the dispute raised in the workplace relations complaint form. In the event that the Employer does not indicate an unwillingness to have this matter dealt with by way of Adjudicator investigation, the Employer will be regarded as having given consent.
Background:
The worker herein has brought a Complaint under the Industrial Relations legislation concerning the application of the Bullying and Harassment protections in the workplace. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant says he made a complaint of bullying against a colleague and that this complaint was not dealt with by the Employer in line with what might be expected under the Safety Health and Welfare Acts, and under the local Grievance procedure. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent does not accept that a complaint in the manner alleged was made and that the Employment herein came to be terminated by reason of a below par performance. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The worker herein was employed on a probationary basis at the start of May 2019. The workplace herein is a busy convenience retail store in the city of Dublin and the Employer herein feels that he was investing a lot of time in the Complainant to train him up at the till and other skills. On or about the 28th of May 2019 I accept that the Complainant went to his Employer and made a complaint concerning another member of staff. On balance I accept that the Complainant believed he has been subjected to inappropriate comments made by this third party. Whether or not such comments were made and /or were inappropriate is immaterial as the matter was not investigated and instead the Complainant’s employment was terminated. The Employer concedes that the Complainant was looking for a change in his roster so that he could avoid the individual in question. The Employer was not willing to accommodate the Complainant as regards the shift change, and in fact was much more concerned that the Complainant’s performance was lacking. The employer felt he was not a good fit for the workplace. In those circumstances the Complainant’s employment came to an end. The Complaint before me is that the Employer failed to deal with a legitimate complaint of Bullying and Harassment which he put to his Employer in the course of his employment. He says that the Employer failed to deal with this stand-alone issue and instead terminated the employment for non-performance. The Complainant did not raise the issue of Unfair Dismissal. I fully accept the Complainant’s entitlement to have this dispute dealt with under the Industrial Relations mechanisms. On balance I accept that, in the course of this employment, the Employer herein failed in his duty to listen to and investigate an allegation of inappropriate harassment and bullying by one employee against another.
|
Decision:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 CA-00029617-001 I recommend that the Employer herein pay the sum of €400.00 to the worker for failing to properly adhere to the Grievances processes which should apply in this and any workplace. |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:
Key Words:
|