Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Housekeeper

A Nursing Home

Complainant

Respondent

Representatives

Self

N/A

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-00025486-001

01/02/2019

The complainant worked for the respondent between the 23rd May 2016 and the 9th October 2018. She worked as a housekeeper in a nursing home and earned €350 per week. The worker gave details of incidents with a chef and the ongoing stress this caused her. The employer asserted that it did what it could for the worker and did not want to cause her stress.

In the complaint form, the worker sets out that two years previously, she had a bad experience with a chef in the respondent workplace. She had been asked to help in the kitchen. The chef was criticising colleagues, using bad language. The chef hit the worker’s bottom with a tea cloth. He entered her personal space just as the house manager entered the room. The house manager asked the worker if everything was okay and she answered ‘yes’; the house manager asked if there had been problems with the chef, the worker replied ‘no’.

The worker outlined that similar behaviour took place the following day, again with the chef hitting her with the tea cloth but also banging ‘his lower and private part with force into my backside on the right side of my body’. She outlined that this could have knocked her off her feet. She went home and phoned the manager, who replied that she would sort it out.

The worker said that she approached the owner on the next day she was due back, who assured her that there was somebody else working in the kitchen that day. He also said that the worker could do housekeeping elsewhere. The worker then saw the director of nursing, whom she told about the bad language and the hitting with the tea towel. The worker told the director of nursing that she did not wish to pursue this.

The worker outlined that she was later approached by staff and she believed that this was at the behest of the chef to find out about her complaint. The worker got a bad vibe off staff. The chef left shortly thereafter but she was unhappy with how the director of nursing praised him when he was finishing up. The worker continued to work for the employer. She referred to bottling things up and becoming stressed. The worker referred to the problems with communication. She asks for a reference to help find alternative employment.

At the hearing, the worker outlined that she was suffering from depression so resigned from her employment. She took sick leave from September 2018. She acted on advice she received to move forward and sought other employment. She was offered part-time employment as a home carer. She was upset at the reference provided by the employer which referenced her sick leave. The worker said that she broke down at the interview with another nursing home.

The worker had told the employer that she did not wish to pursue the kitchen incident. While the chef had left, she had difficulties with a named manager, who blamed the worker and had also recorded her on the phone. She had been moved out of the kitchen. The worker said that she reported everything to the house manager, but this staff member would revert to her behaviour.

The worker said that she has since qualified at FETAC level 5 and completed her work experience.

The employer said that it did not want to see the worker suffer. It stated that stress was not mentioned on the sick certificates until the end of her employment. The employer outlined that it had no difficulty with supplying a reference to the worker, and references had been supplied in the past. The two references are positive about the worker but refer to 44 days of absence.

The employer accepted that the incident with the chef was serious and had been witnessed by the house manager. Only the bad language was reported, and the worker was moved to housekeeping. The employer only became aware of the kitchen towel incident in September. The employer investigated the incident and a staff member gave a statement that the worker and another came to her.

The employer outlined that the chef left in March 2017, after this incident but not because of it. It said that the worker was given every opportunity to raise issues.

The owner present at the hearing said that the worker had approached her on the 13th September and mentioned the canteen situation. This was a very serious situation and he held a meeting the following day. He offered the employer’s support and the house manager told him that the worker did not want to pursue it. The owner said that he wanted this brought to light. The worker later resigned. He met the worker in a hotel and asked her to return.

It is clear from the complaint form and from what the worker said at the adjudication that this was a very stressful time. The worker was subjected to appalling behaviour at the hands of the chef. She reported this to managers. The chef left the workplace, but this matter was not resolved for the worker. She continued to be stressed, leading to sick leave (as reflected in the August 2018 appraisal). She resigned in October 2018 and sought alternative employment. She mentioned making the decision to leave the employer on foot of advice to seek a ‘clean break’.

It was also clear from the adjudication hearing that the employer took this matter seriously, in particular when it was brought to their attention again in September 2018. It asked the worker not to resign. It offered to pursue the matter and to ‘bring it to light’.

This is a dispute pursuant to the Industrial Relations Act; my role is to make a recommendation in accordance with the merits of the case. The issue arises from March 2017 when the worker was subject to appalling behaviour by the chef. The worker reported this, but it was not formally dealt with as the chef left. The worker also told the director of nursing that she did not wish to pursue it. There was, however, no process and no outcome.

Unfortunately, the worker suffered ongoing stress, because of this and because of her father died and she had to manage her mother’s health needs. The worker resigned, and the respondent asked her to reconsider. It offered to address the serious allegations presented by the worker.

Both parties to this case gave impressive and, at times, emotional evidence. It is clear that the employer did all it could to stave off the worker’s resignation. She decided that it was better for her health to seek work elsewhere. It is obvious from the hearing that the worker is a person of good standing with the employer. The employer supplied positive references, although they state the amount of sick leave taken as this is specifically requested in the form.

Looking at the case overall, it is clear that the worker reported the serious incidents and the employer offered to ‘go further’. Grievance and harassment policies allow for issues to be dealt with informally. In this case, the engagement of either policy, even informally, would allow the full extent of what occurred to come out, for example disclosing the incident the chef banged into the worker’s body and used the tea towel. Even if the chef had now left, the worker would have the opportunity to disclose all the information. The employer said that it only had the full information just prior to her resignation.

Based on the above, I recommend the following:

·         That the employer recognises the worker as a person of good standing in any references;

·         That the employer pays the worker €350 in recognition of what happened and the follow-up to the incident of March 2017.

CA-00025486-001

I recommend the following:

·         That the employer recognises the worker as a person of good standing in any references;

·         That the employer pays the worker €350 in recognition of what happened and the follow-up to the incident of March 2017.

Industrial Relations Act / bullying and harassment

Formal or informal response