Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Maintenance Man

A Facilities Company

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-00029277-001

24/06/2019

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

CA-00029277-002

24/06/2019

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

CA-00029277-003

24/06/2019

The respondent is an outsourced facilities services provider and the complainant has worked with them since 2010 as a maintenance man. He works at the office of a government agency in Dublin city.

The complainant has three grievances with his employer. These relate to a loss of overtime, the provision of uniforms and the forgery of his signature in 2014, 2017 and 2019. In accordance with the company’s grievance procedure, three meetings were held on December 20th 2018 and on January 17th and February 4th 2019. From the complainant’s perspective, the outcome was unsatisfactory and the issues moved to be investigated under stage 2 of the procedure. A meeting took place on February 26th 2019 and the findings from this stage of the process were outlined in a letter to the complainant on March 20th 2019. A copy of this letter was submitted in evidence at the hearing.  

While some progress was made regarding the uniform, the complainant was dissatisfied with the company’s response regarding overtime and the forgery of his signature and he submitted an appeal against the findings of March 20th. An appeal meeting with the operations director was held on April 5th 2019 and the outcome of the appeal was confirmed in a letter to the complainant on May 15th.   The complainant remains unhappy with the outcome of the appeal and he submitted these grievances to the WRC on June 26th 2019.

The complainant said that he generally works overtime on Saturday mornings and he is paid his expenses for his bus fare and a meal allowance. In 2018, when the company’s finance department was setting up a new expenses payments system, employees were asked to sign a revised copy of the IT Systems Security Policy. The complainant had concerns about some aspects of the policy and he didn’t sign it.   His manager at the time advised him that, if he didn’t sign the policy, he would not be paid his expenses.   The complainant got advice from his union representative in SIPTU. The Legal Rights Department in the union advised him of their concerns with certain aspects of the document and he continued to refuse to sign it.   Because he was concerned that he wouldn’t be paid his expenses, he decided not to work overtime.

In March 2019, the complainant’s grievance regarding the signing of the IT Security Policy was resolved to his satisfaction when the company agreed to continue to pay his expenses without setting him up on the new payments system. This meant that he was not required to sign his compliance with the IT Policy. He resumed working overtime on Saturdays as normal.

This complaint is about the fact that, because of his concerns about the IT Security Policy, the complainant did not work 26 hours of overtime and he is at a loss of pay for these hours at a rate of time and a half, resulting in a total loss of €919.42.   He wants the company to reimburse him for this amount.

In respect of this complaint, the respondent’s case is that overtime was available for the complainant, but he didn’t work the hours offered. This grievance was the subject of an investigation and an appeal, but the company’s position was consistent; overtime was available for the complainant, but he did not work the hours.

The complainant submitted a grievance in respect of the company’s request to sign its IT Security Policy so that he could be set up on a new automated weekly expenses system.   Expenses were previously paid monthly, but this not a material issue in respect of this complaint.

During the period when his grievance was being processed and while he was seeking advice from SIPTU, the complainant refused to do the overtime that was available to him.   His explanation was that his manager told him that he wouldn’t be paid his expenses if he didn’t sign the policy.   The manager in question did not attend the hearing to give evidence. The complainant said that the expenses consisted of the cost of his bus fare to and from work and a meal allowance.

While the complainant was trying to have this grievance resolved, it is my view that he could have continued to work overtime “under protest,” in the expectation that the company would address his concerns about signing the IT Security Policy.   The potential loss of expenses on any Saturday was significantly less than what he would have earned in overtime and it would not have been unreasonable for him to carry this risk for a few weeks until the problem could be resolved.

I note the respondent’s decision to make an exception for the complainant and to excuse him from the requirement to sign his compliance with the IT Security Policy. It is my view that this is a unique exception for any employee in respect of an important company policy. By making this exception, the company can pay the complainant his expenses on a monthly basis without setting him up on the automated payments system. From this, it appears to me that the respondent is well-disposed to accommodating the complainant’s concerns. By deciding not to work overtime while this grievance was being investigated, I find that the complainant was precipitative, and this is to his own detriment. As he freely decided not to work the overtime that was available to him, I find that the company has no obligation to him for the loss of pay.

I recommend that the respondent takes no further action regarding this dispute.

The complainant argues that the company’s policy regarding the allocation of the various items that comprise his uniform is unsatisfactory. He said that, since 2014, he consistently has to contact his manager about a new uniform and in 2017, the company reduced the number of jumpers issued every year from two to one. The complainant raised a grievance about this in 2018 and following local meetings, in March 2019, the company agreed to amend the company’s uniform policy and to provide the complainant with the items of uniform clothing that he requested.

The complainant said that on July 24th 2019, his manager ordered a uniform for him, but that the wrong size was delivered. On the date of this hearing, he had still not been provided with his new uniform.

The complainant argues that, in respect of this matter, the company is failing in its duty of care towards him and he seeks compensation of €6,000 for the inconvenience that he has endured.

For the respondent, Ms Tiilikainen said that the respondent has considered the complainant’s expectation in respect of the items of uniform clothing that he should receive. A copy of the company’s Dress Code Policy was submitted in evidence. Following the investigation into this grievance, additional items of clothing were approved and a new uniform was ordered.  

This grievance about an adequate supply of the components of a uniform has been the subject of an investigation which, in my view, has been satisfactorily resolved. I regret the delay in providing the complainant with a new uniform. I note the respondent’s position that the complainant was provided with a uniform in accordance with its policy and that, as a result of his complaints, he will be provided with additional items as an exception to the policy. I see no cause for compensation regarding this grievance and I consider this matter to be resolved.

I recommend that the respondent continues to ensure that the complainant is provided with an adequate supply of uniforms so that he can carry out his job in comfort and with dignity.

In the course of the dispute about the introduction of the automated expenses system, the complainant discovered that, in 2014, his signature had been inserted on four documents that he did not sign himself. One of these was two pages of the IT Security Policy which was the subject of the grievance set out at the first complaint above. The third document was a Business Conduct Policy and the fourth was the policy regarding the removal of property. Each of the four documents are dated October 17th 2014 and the two IT Security policies are counter-signed by the complainant’s line manager at the time. The other two documents do not require a manager’s signature.

The respondent carried out an investigation into these forgeries and they accept that the complainant did not sign the four documents. They were unable to establish who signed them.  In her letter of March 20th 2019, the investigator said that she met the complainant’s line manager who counter-signed two of the forged documents and, because of the passage of time from October 2014, he could not recall signing the documents. To reach a resolution on this grievance, the manager who investigated this complaint proposed that the company would destroy the four documents, or, they would give them to the complainant.

In the course of the investigation into this matter, the complainant discovered two more documents, overtime claim forms, on which his signature has been inserted, but which he did not sign. One is dated December 12th 2017 and the second is dated April 18th 2019. Copies of both documents were submitted in evidence by the complainant and the signature appears to be the same on both. The December 2017 document is a claim for two hours’ pay for overtime and the April 2019 document is a claim for one hour’s overtime. At the hearing, the complainant said that he could not recall if he worked these hours or if he received payment for them.

The complainant wants the person or persons who signed the documents with his signature to be held accountable. He also seeks compensation for what he believes is the respondent’s inadequate response to his signature being repeatedly forged on company documents.

The respondent’s position regarding the fact that the complainant’s signature has been forged is that although the 2014 documents were counter-signed by his line manager at the time, this “does not represent incontrovertible evidence” that the manager signed the documents. An investigation has yet to be carried out into the 2017 and 2019 forgeries on the overtime claim forms.

At the hearing of this complaint, I expressed my view that it is a serious matter to append an employee’s name to a document without his knowledge, to give the impression that he has signed his acceptance of the contents. The documents submitted in evidence on which the complainant’s signature has been written by someone other than him are fraudulent.

The documents from 2014 that were presented in evidence appear to have been signed around the time of the transfer of the complainant from his previous employer to the respondent.   The 2017 and 2019 overtime claims seem to have been signed by a different person and I understand that the respondent has not yet carried out an investigation into these forgeries.

It is my view that the respondent has not properly investigated the 2014 forgeries and they appear to have resisted reaching a conclusion based on the evidence and their reasonable belief about who wrote the complainant’s name on the documents.   This is regrettable and has resulted in the complainant becoming frustrated, angry and distrustful of his employer. It’s clear to me that, even if the amount of compensation was paid that the complainant requested, the difficulties in the relationship between him and the respondent will not easily be resolved.

Having considered this matter, I recommend as follows:

1. The complainant’s personnel file is to be examined to ensure that no other forgeries exist and the complainant is to be given a written assurance in this regard.

2.   The respondent is to carry out an investigation into the forging of the complainant’s signature on all the documents he has identified, including the 2014 documents which have already been examined.

3. Having examined all the evidence again and, based on the investigating manager’s reasonable belief, the respondent is to decide who signed the documents. The complainant is to be informed of the conclusions reached and the individuals who forged the complainant’s signature are to be informed and appropriately sanctioned.

4. The respondent is to provide the complainant with a written apology for the forgeries which resulted in a breach of trust between him and his employer. As a gesture of recompense, the respondent is to pay the complainant an amount of money through the payroll, so that he receives a sum of €1,000 net.

Grievances