Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Employee

A Bank

Representatives

Financial Services Union

 Kane Tuohy Solicitors

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-00026890-001

07/03/2019

The Worker has referred a dispute alleging that there was a breach of the Probation Policy, in that she was prevented from following the Policy. The Worker alleges that she was undermined and not empowered to manage a specific member of her team. The Worker is also alleging that there was a breach of the Bullying Policy and she was not given a right of reply or to defend herself. She asserts that she discovered via the internal investigation that no actual bullying complaint was made about her and she alleges that the manager in question has vilified her and damaged her career and reputation beyond repair. 

The Worker has been employed by the respondent since 19 October 2015. On 28 December 2017, she raised a formal grievance which went through the Respondent Organisation’s Group Internal Grievance Process to Independent third-party review stage. The Worker asserts that she has been significantly impacted due to speaking out within the current respondent’s organisational culture. The Worker asserts that she has experienced a toxic environment of fear, fostered by a sense of entitlement and lack of accountability at senior levels. She states that she has suffered humiliation, confidence issues and also been diagnosed with panic attacks, anxiety and her doctor has noted no previous issues and summarised it as direct impact from the situation that occurred. The Worker asserts that this was further exacerbated by the unnecessarily protracted process at the hands of the respondent which resulted in “no findings” through two stages of the internal grievance process. The Worker contends that it wasn’t until Stage 3, the independent stage, that her issues were considered and somewhat heard. The Worker states that it should be noted from the outset that it took from December 2017 to October 2018 to conclude two stages of the Respondent’s Group Grievance Process.

The Worker states that she appealed to Stage 3 – Independent 3rd Party review on 24 October 2018 which resulted in a further period of 8 weeks to arrange. She contends that in totality, the full grievance process took from December 2017 to January 2019 to conclude. The Worker states that following the findings report, she received no communication from HR until she prompted them on 14 March to which she was advised that the process and matter was concluded. The next communication she received was 7 May 2019 which outlines actions at an organisational level not all directly linked to the findings and no consultation has occurred to try to resolve the matters which does not give the Worker confidence in the respondent’s commitment to resolution. The Worker maintains that the continued lack of action has had significant impact on her and has added to the mismanagement of the original Grievance she raised. The Union asserts that employees should freely and safely be in a position to report issues without any adverse consequences with confidence that concerns will be listened to and acted upon. The Worker contends that she brought these issues to the attention of management not only to highlight her own detrimental experience of same but to inform the respondent’s Group policies and improve culture and to ensure that it does not happen to another colleague in the future.

Probation Policy

The Worker asserts that the report has found that management mishandled the probationary policy and that she should not have been overruled in her assessment of the probation but rather the probation period should have been extended. It is the view that management should have taken more steps to address the difficulties in the working relationship between the Worker and the probationer. It is felt that management should have engaged with the Worker and she should have not been undermined.

Worker felt unsupported and undermined 

The Worker states that the third-party finding report partially upholds this part of her complaint however this continues without any intervention due to the direct actions of Management. The Worker disputes that she could have handled the situation differently and would like the systemic element reviewed where the management system prevented her from being an effective manager due to her being disempowered and her voice removed from the process and her professional credibility consistently undermined. The Worker contends that she was victimised and put through 6 months of protracted discussions with her senior manager in what appears to have been an attempt to destroy her professional ability and by speaking out she was further undermined. The Worker asserts that the report fails to address this and the portion of blame is put on her to exert authority. The Union states that it also expects a rational response to a very irrational management system void of logic despite escalating to three senior managers and HR – the Worker was not heard. The Union states that the Worker was doing excessive working hours in 2017 and this was regularly flagged to management- e-mails and evidence regarding same were provided at Stage 1. The Union maintains that the Worker was pressurised to take on extra responsibilities which equated to an additional 50% of a full-time role and none of these issues have been addressed.

Breach of Bullying Policy

The Report found that management should have clarified the nature of complaint earlier in the process worryingly it was confirmed the vexatious claim made by the Worker’s Senior Manager which is an integral root of the problem had no real basis. The Worker states that during the independent Stage 3 hearing, the senior executive nominee advised (for the first time) that during her interview with the Probationer at Stage 2 level, he advised that he never raised a complaint formal or otherwise and specifically never said he was being bullied. The Union states that these findings are extremely serious and the respondent Group has yet again and to date failed to acknowledge or take any action to rectify this.

“Boy’s / Men’s Club”

The Union states that the Worker is and has always been a strong performer in her role which she brings significant experience to, performance which is commended by many in the organisation including at Group CEO level. The Worker believes that there is a Boy’s / Men’s Club culture in operation in the respondent organisation. Despite detailed consistent reports, evidence and corroborating views by other female senior colleagues, the senior male managers sided with and favoured the “views” of a new male employee with no record within the respondent organisation. The Union states that it was noted in the findings that senior management’s failure to utilise the extension to the probation as is provided for in the policy reinforced in the Worker’s mind that they did not support her.

Impact on the Worker as a result of speaking out within the current respondent Bank culture    

Annual Pay and Performance Review is impacted due to a lower rating of Fully Meets Expectations compared to all previous years which she exceeded expectations. The Union states that in the current year, the Worker has evidence where Senior Managers provided her manager with extensive positive based feedback.

Treated with bias within the team and constantly seen as negative with her voice removed or questioned when providing her professional subject matter experience on work items. Constantly treated differently with bias by managers and other senior team member as outlined within the feedback she received from her line manager “challenges with a specific team”. No concrete examples have been provided to the Worker and all communication has occurred in e-mail correspondence.

No Performance meetings or two- way communication processes in place around Goals, Performance and other personnel issues with current Manager.

Impact on her confidence, reputation & professional integrity.

No other party was questioned professionally, and the Worker was treated as if the process was a disciplinary hearing and there was no evidence of the respondent Group values in action.

Lack of career progression – overlooked for opportunities to develop or provide her experience within the team seen as negative and reputation tainted when applying internally.

Removal from further Education support. The Worker was studying at the IMI, full support for which was previously confirmed by the respondent, however since her complaint, support for further education has been withdrawn and is not forthcoming despite being requested to draft extensive additional rationale. The Worker undertook a Master’s Programme with the respondent Group support through the Group Education Scheme but was then advised the previous approval was applicable to One Diploma only when she returned. There has been no support of her development.

Vexatious Bullying Complaint not addressed. Further to the Stage 3 Review, it was confirmed to the Independent Investigator that no complaint formal or informal was raised with the Worker’s senior manager.

The respondent states that the worker has been employed by it since October 2015. It states that on 28 December 2017, the worker e-mailed the Senior HR Business Partner to advise that she wished to raise a formal grievance. The nature of the worker’s grievance was that she felt that her Line Manager and her Line Manager’s Manager had prevented her from adhering to the Respondent’s probation policy when managing one of her direct reports. The respondent asserts that as a result the worker felt that she had been undermined and was not empowered to carry out her role as a Line Manager. It states that the worker also felt that she was not given a right to reply to an allegation made against her in contravention to the Respondent’s Bullying and Harassment Policy.

The respondent asserts that a Senior HR Business Partner, Ms. G was nominated to hear the worker’s grievances. Pursuant to the Respondent’s grievance procedure, Stage 1 Grievance Hearing took place on 28 January 2018 and an additional meeting was held on 16 March 2018. The respondent states that the worker was accompanied at both grievance meetings by Ms. B of the Financial Services Union (FSU). During the course of the meetings, the worker outlined details of her grievance. As part of her investigation, Ms. G met with the relevant individuals to explore the rationale for the decision made with regard to the outcome of the probationer’s probation, to ascertain what action was taken regarding the complaint of bullying and to understand how the actions of the worker’s Line Manager and her Line Manager’s Manager might be deemed to have undermined the worker in her role as Line Manager.

The respondent contends that following investigation, Ms. G issued the outcome of Stage 1 by letter dated 17 April 2018. Ms. G did not uphold the worker’s grievances and outlined her findings in respect of each of the complaints raised by the worker. By way of e-mail dated 18 April 2018, the worker advised of her intention to appeal against Ms. G’s decision not to uphold her Grievance to a Nominee of the Chief Executive and submitted an appeal on 1 May 2018.  The Head of Auditor Finance was nominated by the Chief Executive to hear the worker’s appeal under Stage 2 of the Bank’s grievance procedure. The Worker felt that the scope of the interviews undertaken at Stage 1 were limited, not comprehensive and that the response received was not evidence based. The worker also felt that there still remained an open issue with regard to the breach of the Respondent’s Bullying and Harassment Policy and contended that she had been denied a right to reply to a complaint of bullying against her.

The respondent states that the Head of Auditor Finance conducted a full review of the documentation provided by the worker and the Stage 1 investigation, including meeting notes. In addition, she sought to meet with the relevant individuals to investigate the matter further. She gave her decision on 19 October 2018 by letter. The respondent states that while the Head of Auditor Finance did not uphold the worker’s grievances, she did acknowledge that there were shortcomings on the part of the respondent and apologised on its behalf to the worker. The worker appealed this decision on 24 October 2018.

In accordance with the Respondent’s grievance procedure, this grievance was referred to Mr. H, an independent external HR Consultant to consider same. The Stage 3 grievance hearing was heard on 11 December 2018. The worker was accompanied by her union representative. Mr. H issued his report on 17 January 2019. The respondent contends that his decision can be summarised as follows;

Grievance 1 Line Manager and one up Manager prevented the worker from adhering to the group probation policy. Mr. H upheld this part of the worker’s appeal.

Grievance 2, S believed that she was undermined and not supported. Mr. H found that there was a failure on the part of the worker as well as Senior Management in handling this matter and upheld this grievance in part only.

Grievance 3 Breach of the Group Bullying and Harassment Policy. Mr. H found that no allegation of bullying had been made and as such, did not uphold this part of the worker’s grievance.

Grievance 4 “men’s club” mentality. Mr. H found that there were sufficient concerns raised warranting advising the Head of Culture and/or Head of People of the worker’s concerns to allow them give consideration to the matter.

The respondent states that following Mr. H’s recommendation, the Employee Relation’s Department notified the Head of Culture of the outcome of Mr. H’s recommendation. Employee Relations engaged with the Head of Culture regarding how best to further assess the existence of a “men’s club” mentality within the IT department and generally within the organisation.

The respondent states that Mr. H found that senior management had mishandled the probation process, should have acted immediately when they became aware of the difficulties in the working relationship, should have brought all parties together with a view to resolving the matter, should have had more direct and collegiate discussions with the worker following their gathering of additional feedback on the individual’s performance and could have easily extended his probation, rather than overrule the worker and pass his probation.

The respondent asserts that Mr. H found that there was no evidence that the worker was removed from the probation policy and that there was no sanction made against her. He went on to find that senior management did not strictly adhere to the respondent’s probation policy by overruling the worker’s assessment and failed in the circumstances to extend the probation. The respondent states that arising from this finding, the respondent is implementing the following;-

It will provide training on its probation policy to the line manager and one up manager as referenced in the worker’s complaint. In so doing, it will bring to their attention the deficiencies in their management of the process as identified by Mr. H.

The Employee Relations Group within the respondent organisation, working with its HR colleagues, will implement learning sessions for People Managers in relation to performance management, with particular reference to those on probation to ensure that all who are charged with managing employees understand best practice in the area in terms of identifying performance issues, how to conduct performance related conversations, putting in place Performance Improvement Plans to address these performance concerns, supporting how and when to extend probation. The respondent asserts that as part of this training, Employee Relations will cover handling difficult conversations i.e. highlighting that the performance is not meeting the requisite standard and best practice in managing interpersonal difficulties.

Issue 2

Mr. H found that there was fault from both sides in relation to this issue. The Respondent states that it will engage with the worker to identify and discuss the supports available within the organisation for the worker, for example, the use of escalation points and how best to use HR business partners in terms of management of employees.  In addition, it states that it will engage with the line manager and one up manager referenced in the worker’s complaint to ensure that lessons are learned in how to effectively intervene in worsening work relations and the need for early intervention with a particular emphasis on the importance of effective communication and active listening to all parties.

Issue 3

Mr. H found that the Respondent had failed to clarify at a very early stage that the employee in question had not made a formal bullying complaint but he had informally raised a concern about his working relationship that he hoped would be addressed informally. Mr. H found that the Respondent did not clarify the matter at Stage 2 namely that there was no formal bullying complaint and therefore found that there had been no false allegation made against the worker. Mr. H found that the worker failed to comprehend this and continues to raise it as a matter of deep concern to her and finds that that there was no formal complaint of bullying and harassment made against the worker, there was no investigation and no outcome and the respondent had confirmed the matter was closed.

The respondent states that what it learns from this process is that it should have clarified the nature of the complaint earlier on in the process. Again, the Respondent states that it will provide the senior management in question training on the Respondent’s Bullying and Harassment Policy including, how to process informal and formal complaints and the rights of all parties (including those against whom the complaint is made) in the process.

Issue 4

The respondent states that in keeping with Mr. H’s recommendation that there be engagement with the organisation’s “Head of Culture”, it will use data from a Group wide Employee Engagement Survey recently undertaken throughout the organisation with specific reference to the relevant division, to identify and deal with any issues arising out of the review of that data. Generally, in response to the data, the respondent will delve further into the key findings and implement action plans to tackle any issues arising. The respondent states that these results and action points will be communicated locally. Specifically, in this regard the respondent will compare the results of the relevant division against its broader area of Group Technology & Customer Solutions and further against the results of the organisation in its entirety. The respondent asserts that these results will enable the organisation to ascertain the scores particularly around culture and identify any further actions required.

Having considered all the facts of the current dispute, I find that the worker has a well-founded grievance. I find that her complaint to management about her treatment was poorly handled by the respondent. I also find the delay and tardiness by the respondent in dealing with her complaint including the finalisation of an outcome to her complaint exacerbated the situation for the worker. In light of all the circumstances in the instant dispute, I recommend the following;

1. Union and management engage in discussions with a view to making such adjustments that are necessary to improve the culture within the respondent organisation.    

2. The Respondent pay the worker €7,500 in financial compensation for its failures in the manner in which it handled the worker’s complaint and the tardiness in which it progressed her grievance. 

In light of all the circumstances in the instant dispute, I recommend the following;

1. Union and management engage in discussions with a view to making such adjustments that are necessary to improve the culture within the respondent organisation.   

2. The Respondent pay the worker €7,500 in financial compensation for its failures in the manner in which it handled the worker’s complaint and the tardiness in which it progressed her grievance.