Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Clerical worker

Communications provider

Representatives

Self-represented

HR personnel

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-00021399-001

28/08/2018

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

CA-00021416-001

28/08/2018

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

CA-00021416-003

28/08/2018

CA 21399-001 and CA 21416-001.

Both the claimant and the employer agreed that these were one and the same complaint. The text of both complaints is identical.

The claimant has been employed with the company since 2007.

The claimant asks the adjudicator to find that the employer breached their Dignity at Work Code by engaging in excessive monitoring of work.

CA 0021416-003.

The respondent failed to make notes of an informal complaint of bullying summitted by the claimant to his manager on 9 July 2018.

CA 21399-001 and CA 21416-001.

Both the claimant and the respondent agreed that these were one and the same complaint.

The claimant contends that he was subject to excessive, unwarranted monitoring of his work which is cited as an example of bullying in the respondent’s Dignity at Work Code. On 27 April and 24 July 2018, the claimant’s front-line supervisor advised him of errors in his work some of which dated back to 2017. He was only notified of these errors after he had complained to HR in April 2018 about a local manager confronting him in the lift about a grievance he was taking against that manager. He had not been trained to the extent that he could have avoided making these errors hence this notification to him this was premature.

The claimant asks the adjudicator to find that the employer breached their Dignity at Work Code.

CA 0021416-003.

The second complaint as outlined in his written submission concerns the failure of the respondent to follow up on an informal complaint of bullying against a colleague, submitted by the claimant to his manager at a meeting on 9 July 2018 and, in addition, to make notes of this meeting.

He asked for a report or notes of the meeting on 24 July but was advised that no notes were available even though he noted the supervisor taking notes.

He states that this is a breach of the company’s Dignity at Work Code. Its terms were not observed. The Informal Process states

“The complaint may be verbal or written. If Verbal, a written note of what is complained of should be taken by the designated person and a copy given to the complainant”.

This did not happen in this instance. He considers this to be a breach of trust having observed the line manager taking notes.

He also submitted a copy of an email dated 29 November to the HR manager appealing the latter’s decision not to uphold his complaint of bullying against a colleague.

He asks to be compensated for what he considers to be breaches of the Code

CA 21399-001 and CA 21416-001.

The respondent denies that they engaged in any bullying behaviour with the claimant.

The meetings on the 27 April and 24 July in no way amounted to a disciplinary meeting or to anything more than the normal line manager- employee interaction about some errors.

The claimant was asked if he required any additional training to deal with any knowledge gaps concerning his job and he declined twice.

The claimant chose not to use the grievance procedure to address what he saw as unwarranted monitoring of his work and/or the suggestion of alleged workplace errors and referred the complaint directly to the WRC.

CA 21416-003

On 9 July an informal meeting was held with the claimant to discuss relocation of his team to another area of the building. The claimant at this meeting raised a complaint about a colleague’s behaviour towards him on the 5 July and stated that he wanted it to be dealt with in an informal manner. On 24 July the claimant asked the project leader for minutes of the meeting of 9 July. The project leader informed the claimant in an email that as the meeting had been an information sharing meeting at which the claimant had raised an informal complaint no minutes were available. If the company erred in not making notes of the informal complaint raised by the company at the meeting of 9 July, the claimant could have raised this matter within a few weeks instead of directly referring it to the WRC. The company produced a record of a meeting of 16 July, to which the claimant had previously agreed, and which stated that the complaint was closed.

Ultimately the respondent did examine this complaint and found it to be without merit. The claimant did not pursue this outcome through the Dignity at Work Code or through the Grievance Procedure.

The respondent encouraged the claimant to use his time on sick leave to recover.

His job awaits him once certified as fit to resume work.

CA 21399-001 and CA 21416-001.

The claimant is unhappy that his line manager notified him of errors and maintains that this was premature and that he could have been trained in the areas so as to avoid making errors.

The company has an agreed grievance procedure. This offered the claimant an opportunity to correct the perception that he committed errors in his work or if he had, that the errors were the product of a lack of training. Equally the Dignity at Work Code offered an opportunity to address what he saw as excessive monitoring of his work. He activated neither of the codes which could have addressed this matter.

The adjudicator in ADJ 00018052 observed

“I am also well satisfied that it is well established by the Workplace Relations Commission and the Labour Court that they do not intervene in a dispute under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 until all internal grievance procedures have been fully exhausted. This has clearly not happened in the circumstances of the present dispute”.

The adjudicator found she had no jurisdiction to hear the case.

So also, in the instant case I find that I do not have jurisdiction to hear the case.

CA 21416-003

The claimant made an informal complaint of bullying against a colleague. He advised that he did not wish to pursue the matter at a meeting on 16 July 2018. He considers that the respondent is in breach of the Dignity at Work Code in that the terms requiring written notes were not observed.

The claimant’s position is confusing. He maintains that it was an informal complaint. At a meeting on 16 July 2018 he used the waiving of the informal complaint as a bargaining tool in trying to deter the employer from pursuing disciplinary sanctions against him because of an unrelated matter.

The code does require notes to be made of an informal complaint. But in addition, the claimant submitted an email dated 29 November at the hearing appealing the outcome of the HR manager’s investigation of his complaint. The Code states that where an informal complaint does not result in a satisfactory outcome, the next option is to make a formal complaint. The claimant did not formally invoke the formal procedure but spoke about an appeal of the HR manager’s decision not to uphold the complaint. Invoking the formal complaint process was not flagged to him after the HR manager declined to uphold his complaint.

However repetitive or baseless complaints might appear to the respondent, they must be processed according to the terms of the Dignity at Work Code.

The claimant is currently on sick leave.

I recommend that the employer request the Occupational Support Service to identify the supports necessary for him to return to work. I recommend that upon receipt of medical advice that he is fit to resume work, he should discuss with the Occupational Support Service the merits of transferring his complaint against a colleague- not upheld in November 2018-into the formal process as provided for in the Dignity at Work Code.

I recommend that the claimant should also engage with the Occupational Support Service to identify what he can do to promote harmonious and professional working relationships.

CA 21399-001 and CA 21416-001.

I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint.

CA.21416-003.

I recommend that the employer request the Occupational Support Service to identify the supports necessary for the claimant to return to work. I recommend that upon receipt of medical advice that he is fit to resume work, he should discuss with the Occupational Support Service the merits of transferring his complaint against a colleague- not upheld in November 2018-into the formal process, as provided for in the Dignity at Work Code.

I recommend that the claimant should also engage with the Occupational Support Service to identify what he can do to promote harmonious and professional working relationships.

Industrial Relations: failure to use procedures