Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Admin Assistant

A hospital

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-00028986-001

12/06/2019

The Complainant is an Administration Assistant employed by the Respondent Hospital since August 2007.

This complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 12th June 2019.

The complaint is against the Finance Director regarding how she dealt with the Complainant’s original grievance with the Payroll Supervisor.

It was contended that the whole process was badly handled and her behaviour towards the Complainant was inappropriate and accusatory.

Set out below, a brief time line of the events:

In August of last year, the Complainant was subjected to inappropriate behaviour by his Payroll Supervisor. He brought this to the attention of Ms M (PA) to the Finance Director, who later informed him that she had brought the matter to the Finance Director’s attention. For the next few months the Complainant noticed a change in the Payroll Supervisor’s manner in her dealings with him in fact she rarely spoke to him.

On the 4th November 2018 the Complainant wrote a letter to the Finance Director. On the 13th November 2018 he met with her to discuss his letter. He was shocked with her approach, for example she stated “You haven’t worked in salaries all your life” she asked him, “Why was I still there? And had he applied for any other positions?” The Complainant asked her would she be speaking to any of his colleagues. This made her very angry, she said, she wouldn’t, and advised that if they had a problem they would need to come directly to her. The Finance Director never asked him what had happened and why he had written his letter. At the end of that first meeting, it was agreed that she would speak to the Payroll Supervisor in order to arrange a meeting that the three of them would then attend.

At the meeting of the 15th November 2018, the Complainant was informed that the Payroll Supervisor wouldn’t be attending, the Finance Director pointed out that the Payroll Supervisor was not happy with certain parts of his letter and that she may decide to take her concerns to HR. The Finance Director also pointed out that she told the supervisor to ignore the part of the Complainant’s letter that mentions another employee and that he shouldn’t have involved any other employee. The Finance Director also informed him that the Payroll Supervisor denied that she had made any outburst and had said she was not the problem. When this was said, he replied “If it’s not the Payroll Supervisor then the problem must be me” the Finance Director replied “no, I didn’t say you are the problem”. She then asked the complainant to give it a few weeks.

On the 16th November 2018 the Complainant received an email from the Finance Director. Although this email says it sets out the main items discussed, none of the Complainant’s contributions from the meeting were included apart from the mention regarding his health and well-being.

On the 26th November 2018 the Finance Director emailed the Complainant to ask him to call down to her office where she handed him a copy of the Payroll Supervisor’s letter dated 21st November and asked for his comments. He explained to her that he was due to go on a family holiday and would reply after he returned.

(The Complainant returned to work on Tuesday the 4th December 2018 to a strange atmosphere in salaries.)

On 19th December 2018 at 5pm, the Complainant received an email from the Finance Director stating that the Payroll Supervisor was still awaiting his response to her letter. The Complainant went straight to the Finance Director’s office, he told her how the contents of the Payroll Supervisor’s letter had made him feel emotionally, and that the letter was not addressed to him. The Complainant had offered to attend a meeting with the Payroll Supervisor where she could have asked him these questions and in his opinion after reading her letter that she had already decided to go to HR.

The Complainant apologised regarding not responding to the Finance Director’s request sooner, but

explained that he didn’t know what the position was as a member of the team had left payroll suddenly and as payroll deadlines were tight in December, he needed to focus on completing the work at hand to comply with the relevant payroll deadlines. The Finance Director informed him that the situation with the departing staff member was being dealt with separately and had no bearing on his circumstances.

On the 20th December 2018 upon arriving in work the Complainant was met by a salaries colleague in the store room, and he got upset. During the Christmas break he couldn’t get his meeting of the 19th December 2018 with the Finance Director out of his head. He returned to work on 3rd of January 2019 to find that she had sent him an email on Christmas Eve with a letter attached dated Sunday 23rd December. He found this letter deeply distressing and took the weekend to discuss the situation with his family, after which he contacted the Employee Relations Manager to seek his advice.

Based on this advice the Complainant sent a response on 9th January 2019 to the Finance Director’s letter. On the 17th January 2019 he received a reply from her to his letter of 9th. On the 18th January 2019 he replied to her letter of the 17th January 2019. On the 18th January 2019 at 11:40 she emailed her reply to the complainant’s letter of the same day.

On the 31st March 2019 the Complainant wrote to the Employee Relations Manager to make a complaint against the Finance Director and on the 9th of April 2019, he confirmed to him that "I’m looking to pursue my complaint under the Grievance Procedure"

On the 22nd May 2019 the complainant received an email from the Employee Relations Manager:

"As outlined in my email below, I am unable to progress your grievance at this time. As you know your grievance relates to a former staff member who moved earlier this year. As part of

my examination of your grievance I sent correspondence to this individual in mid-April asking them to respond, however, no response was forthcoming. Therefore, from a (a Respondent’s) perspective I cannot progress matters under our grievance procedures. You are free to seek further advices from other sources should you wish to do so. I appreciate you bringing these matters forward and you are free to avail of the supports offered previously i.e. EAP services."

On the 23rd May 2019 the Complainant replied

" I refer to your emails of the 21st and 22nd May in relation to my grievance/complaint. In this regard I would like to bring to your attention the following points:

1. That the manager named in my grievance/complaint is still in fact an employee of the Respondent.

2. That the individual, still receives Respondent payslips.

3. For the purpose of tax deductions and Revenue obligations, their earnings are still recorded under the Respondent’s registered employer's number”.

Having reviewed the contents of the Respondent’s Grievance Procedure

(Policy Number: HR013), the Complainant noted that the policy does not state that an individual's grievance should be stopped or delayed in the event of one named party refusing to respond to a request from the hospital in relation to this matter. The Complainant’s request that his grievance is progressed and having consideration to the position that the individual held, within the organisation, at the time of his grievance that he would now deem it appropriate, under the policy to now evoke the 4th stage, i.e. 3rd party referral.

Background to the Claimant

The Claimant commenced employment with the Respondent on 13th August 2007 in the capacity of Grade IV Administrative Assistant initially assigned to the Finance Department. He was offered and accepted a permanent contract in December 2007. His current salary is €3,266.37 gross monthly.

Background to the Issue

On 4th November 2018 the Claimant submitted a letter to CP Director of Finance regarding an incident in August 2018 in which he alleged he was subjected to a “nasty, cruel, verbal outburst” from his then Supervisor, EK. He details the complaint that the “outburst was unwarranted” and distressing and continues to allege that the atmosphere between staff and the supervisor had not been good for a number of weeks leading up to the incident and in fact had not been good all year.

The complaint details that the Claimant while he wanted to ask his Supervisor, EK why she “felt the need to treat her staff in such an angry and belittling manner” he felt he could not face her. He did however on the same day speak to MG PA to Director of Finance who he confirms was very helpful and provided him with a number of items which included the Respondent’s Dignity at Work policy which he read.

The letter goes on to describe the Claimant having spoken, since that incident, to a number of people “both inside and outside the company, which led him to discover that “many people are aware of the situation” and “people always known about these problems but have chosen not to act ….”.

The Director of Finance Ms P met with the Claimant on 13th November 2018 and discussed the complaints raised. The Claimant was advised that it would be necessary to provide the letter of complaint to Ms K Supervisor, to obtain her responses before progressing the matter further. The Claimant advised that he needed time to reflect on the events and to “determine what was having a negative impact on him”

By email dated 14th November 2018 the Director of Finance Ms P advised the Claimant that she had spoken to Ms K Supervisor the previous evening about the concerns raised by the Claimant and was meeting with her to work through the complaints raised that day. Ms P also noted that Ms K had requested a copy of the letter (of complaint). She enquired whether that was ok with the Claimant. By way of response email of the same date, the Claimant confirmed that he was ok with those arrangements.

Following the discussion between Ms P and Ms K on 14th November, Ms P again emailed the Claimant to enquire whether he would be available to meet with her the following day, 15th November. The Claimant confirmed his availability.

The Claimant and Ms P, Director of Finance met as arranged on 15th November and an email confirming the discussion was furnished to the Claimant the following day, 16th November. The main items discussed were namely:

1.       That the Claimant was to determine what was contributing to the atmosphere in the Salaries Office.

2.       That Ms K’s position was that she did not micro manage staff unless there was a performance issue and did not accept that she could be deemed to be the case of the atmosphere in the office

3.       That there had been an unprecedented level of bereavement within Salaries and varying stages in the grief journey that staff were experiencing. The impact of the illness of a colleague was referenced also in this context, as was the death of another colleague.

4.       Finally, the supports provided for staff well being were detailed, including EAP details, Occupational Health and the option to transfer to another department.

The Claimant was requested to consider the foregoing and to then revert to Ms P, Director of Finance.   (It is worthy of note that while this communication is referenced in later correspondence, no reply was ever received by the Respondent).

Some five days later on 21st November, a written response to the complaints was furnished to Ms P by Ms K, and details Ms K’s position. She refuted the allegation that she had spoken to the Claimant in a “nasty, cruel verbal outburst at any time; the allegations made by him were vague and she was seeking clarification of the date and time of the alleged outburst, the context of the outburst, what she was alleged to have said and who witnessed the alleged outburst. Ms K took exception to her professional conduct and ability being discussed outside her department and outside the Company.

Ms K specifically requested details of the people to whom the Claimant had spoken, together with any written communications in connection with his complaint. She further noted that as she did not work in the main Salaries Office, she was not aware of any issue with the atmosphere there and no issued had ever been raised locally with her in that regard.

Ms P met with the Claimant on 26th November 2018 and provided him with Ms K’s written response to the complaints raised. He was asked by Ms P to respond. When, by 19th December, no response had been provided by the Claimant, Ms P furnished him an email seeking the responses. At a subsequent meeting on 22nd December, the Claimant advised Ms P that as Ms K had indicated her intention in her written response of 21st November to go to HR, the Claimant had not provided the responses requested. A letter to the Claimant was issued on 23rd December clarifying the actions taken to date by Ms P and again seeking a reply to Ms K’s letter of 21st November.

The letter of 23rd December specifically outlines that in the absence of clarifications sought by Ms K, the allegations raised by the Claimant could not be progressed. The letter also contains a clear enquiry as to the Claimant’s well being and whether he requires further support. An intention to meet in early January 2019 is outlined for the purposes to discuss and review the situation.

Notwithstanding that Ms P furnished the letter of 23rd December to the Claimant by email on 24th December emails suggest that the Claimant did not receive the letter of 23rd December until 3rd January following the Christmas holidays.

As indicated in an email from the Claimant on 3rd January notwithstanding that he had received the response by Ms K on 26th November 2018, in excess of five weeks earlier, he nonetheless sought a number of days to furnish a response.

On 9th January the Claimant reverted in writing. The letter contains references to dates but not, as had been explicitly requested on a number of occasions at that juncture, responses to Ms K’s letter of 21st November.   The only reference to those responses is his indication that he was “happy to engage in a mediated solution (with an outside mediator) to address the concerns raised and happy to address the items requested by Ms K …… as part of a mediated solution”.

In response, Ms P by letter dated 17th January again sought clarifications previously requested in order to address the complaints raised by the Claimant.

The Claimant replied in writing by letter dated 18th January but again failed to provide the responses previously requested. This letter did contain an assertion against Ms P however that “…. At no time … did you ask or show any interest in asking me about what actually happened in August or November …..”. This contention was refuted by Ms P in an email dated 18th January where she confirmed again what had been discussed with the Claimant at the meeting on 13th November – he had stated at that time that he needed time to reflect on matters and to determine was having the negative effect on him.

It should be noted that Ms P was moving to another Area by way of secondment in January 2019 a move of which all staff had been aware for some time. In those circumstances, most particularly given that the Claimant had not provided responses as sought, despite numerous requests, Ms P advised that she would not be able to progress the complaints raised by the Claimant.

During the time that the foregoing communications were ongoing, the Claimant also wrote to the Mr L Employee Relations Manager and Deputy Director of HR, initially on 7th January seeking an urgent meeting, for the purpose of seeking advice in relation to the “Dignity at Work matter”. Mr L had been out of the office and requested a call from the Claimant in order to discuss the matter. A meeting was ultimately arranged on 7th March 2019 between the Claimant and Mr L following which, by email dated 1st April 2017 the Claimant submitted a written complaint dated 31st March 2019. This letter was a complaint against the Director of Finance, Ms P’s alleged “bad handling” of the complaint against Ms K and outlines a number of allegations against Ms P which are not referenced in any of the previous communications.

Mr L then communicated with Ms P seeking a written response to the complaint raised.

The Claimant later sought an update from Mr L and Mr L’s response of 21st May, confirming that he was unable to progress the matter any further, in circumstances where he had not received a response from Ms P. Further clarification was furnished from Mr L by email on 22nd May.

The Claimant filed the matter with the Workplace Relations Commission on 12th June 2019.

Company Arguments

It is the Respondent’s position that it complied in full with the Grievance Procedure of the Organisation. The Claimant’s complaints (dated 4th November) to Ms P, Director of Finance were made informally as confirmed by him in a number of the communications.

A meeting was arranged with the Claimant to discuss the complaints raised on 13th November and a second meeting was held on 15th November. These meetings are referenced in the Claimant’s own correspondence and confirmed to have taken place.

Ms K was furnished with a copy of the complaints on 13th November and requested to reply, which she did on 21st November.

The Claimant was provided with Ms K’s reply and was aware that a number of clarifications were sought by Ms K. He was also made aware that Ms P, Director of Finance, could not progress matters until these clarifications were provided by him.

All of the foregoing communications specifically request clarification of the Claimant’s complaints.   The Claimant failed to comply with the requests, despite being aware per the communications that matters could not progress until the clarifications had been received.

It is therefore the Respondent’s position that the Claimant precluded progression of his own complaints and accordingly it was out of the hands of the Respondent to conclude the matters raised.

The Claimant then raised the complaints against Ms P, firstly to the Human Resources Department of the Respondent on 31st March 2019, at a time when the Claimant was aware that she had transferred from the Respondent some three months previously; subsequently he referred this matter to the WRC. The communications included with this submission evidence the attempted progression of this complaint against Ms P and the inability of the HR Department of the Respondent to progress these issues in circumstances where no response was received from Ms P, Director of Finance, which led to the Claimant deeming it appropriate to evoke Stage 4 of the Grievance Procedure, ie to refer the matter to a third party.

The Respondent submits that resolution of the issues raised in relation to Ms K was prevented as a result of ongoing non-cooperation of the Claimant in the process.

Resolution to the complaints against the Director of Finance Ms P, were not possible because it is not within the remit of the Respondent to compel participation in such a procedure when the employee in question is no longer involved in the Respondent Organisation. However, the Adjudicator is asked to note the actions taken by the Respondent in relation to this complaint, were fair and reasonable in the circumstances in its attempts to resolve the matter.

Conclusion

The claim before the Adjudicator is seeking redress for alleged bullying and harassment procedures in accordance with the Claimant’s claim form as submitted. No claims, assertions or complaints whatsoever were made by the Claimant at any time to the Respondent which referred to bullying or harassment and the Respondent takes the gravest exception to the reference thereto within the Claim form. The submission and evidence provided clearly and unambiguously indicate that the Claimant’s complaint in the first instance related to one alleged altercation with his Supervisor on one occasion in August 2018. The second complaint, which is the substantive matter before the Adjudicator today, relates to the Finance Director’s handling of the initial complaint.

The Respondent is at a loss to understand what the Claimant is seeking however, in the context of the above, the submission and evidence provided in the booklet, the Adjudicator is respectfully requested to uphold the Respondent’s position and dismiss the claim on the basis that the Claimant has been treated fairly and reasonably in all the circumstances.  

I have read the Respondent’s Grievance Procedure and feel it was appropriate that the Complainant initiated the procedure at stage 2, stage 1 was with his line manager who he had felt he had the initial grievance against.

The Director of Finance, at the end of her first meeting with the Complainant (13th November 2018) informed him that she would arrange a meeting for the three of them (the Complainant, the Payroll Supervisor and herself) would attend in an effort to sort things out. Said meeting was arranged for 15th November however the Payroll Supervisor would not attend as she appeared to dislike some of the content in the Complainant’s initial letter. I believe this action on the part of the Payroll Supervisor is in breach of section 7 of the Respondent’s Grievance Procedure and denied all concerned the possibility of addressing this grievance at the earliest possible opportunity.

At one stage mediation with the help and assistance of an external mediator was mentioned and the Complainant appeared to be positive towards this. This did not happen.

The Complainant was provided with a copy of the Payroll Supervisor’s response to his letter and in this response the Payroll Supervisor sought some clarifications from the Complainant. The Complainant failed to comply with the request despite being made aware that matters would or could not be progressed until the clarifications had been received.

The Complainant then raised complaints about the way in which his grievance had been handled by the Finance Director and this letter was received by the Human Resources section at the end of March 2019.

I notice that the last communication between the Finance Director and the Complainant was dated 18th January 2019. I find it strange that the Complainant waited for a period in excess of 10 weeks before making an official complaint to Human Resources.

I accept that the Employee Relations Manager made a genuine attempt to address the grievance. The fact that the Finance Director and the Payroll Supervisor have moved on made his task very difficult, I do not believe impossible. The Complainant makes some statements about the Finance Director still being on the Respondent payroll. It should have been possible therefore to obtain a response to the correspondence he had sent her, when he did send the correspondence to her surely, he expected a reply!

In conclusion on this matter I’m not happy with the actions of both the Complainant and the Respondent. At the Informal Discussions stage (section 7) the refusal of the Payroll Supervisor was a mistake and almost guaranteed escalation to a formal stage.

When any employee formally enters a grievance procedure it is not unreasonable that he/she should expect a conclusion on said grievance.

The Complainant’s actions in delaying the whole process have not been helpful.

Taking everything into account I recommend a compensation payment of €1,000 to the Complainant.

Such payment should be made within 42 days from the date of this decision.

Taking everything into account I recommend a compensation payment of €1,000 to the Complainant.

Industrial Relations Issue.