Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Trainer

Training Centre

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-00010057-001

06/03/2017

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

CA-00010057-002

06/03/2017

The Complainant seeks adjudication and recommendation on matters which have arisen over the past number of years in her employment which she believes have been unsatisfactorily addressed by the Respondent.   There were two hearings held into the issues.

The Complainant has been employed by the Respondent as an Educator for over 22 years.    Issues in her workplace have had a detrimental affect on her professional and personal life and she refers the issues to the WRC as she wishes to have them appropriately addressed. The origin of the problem arose in March 2013 when the Complainant was requested to attend an investigation meeting concerning alleged behaviours on the part of the Complainant towards her colleagues.     Following the investigation, a report (A) was issued to the management and a copy was to be given to the main parties seeking a response within a week. However, this never happened and over two years later, the Complainant’s Union Official was advised that the Board accepted the report and that no sanctions would be imposed but any future repetition of this behaviour will result in disciplinary action against the Complainant. The Complainant then submitted a grievance against her General Manager, which was referred to an external investigator (B) who met with the individuals, but did not include their statements in his findings nor did he give the Complainant a copy of same.   The Complainant’s complaints were not upheld.   The Complainant appealed this report and an appeal report (C) issued without having interviewed any other witnesses except the Complainant. It is submitted that the whole process was flawed and took an inordinate amount of time to complete. While the work situation has improved somewhat more recently, the Complainant should be compensated for the way in which she was treated and the fact that the process was flawed and took such a long time, causing stress and anxiety for the Complainant.

The Respondent submits that it is not for the Adjudication Officer to re-investigate matters which have been the subject, in this case, to internal and external investigations.   Rather the role is to establish whether the company acted reasonably and in line with the relevant policies and procedures in investigating the complaint. In this regard the company emphatically states that it has invested significantly in the resolution of the Complainant’s complaints. The company has engaged two independent external consultants with a view to resolving the matters. The Complainant was represented throughout the initial investigation and her appeal, and was afforded natural justice throughout.     The company notes that the Complainant’s appeal did uphold certain of her appeal grounds, including some reference to the process undertaken. The company cannot be held accountable for this, having had no hand in any deviation from best practice.             The appeal report recommended that each individual “consider how their daily interactions can be improved in a way that ensures their ongoing working relationship is professional, courteous and respectful towards each other, towards colleagues, recognising their relative positions..”

It is submitted that the Respondent wishes to have a harmonious relationship with the Complainant. However, management must retain the right to manage, while treating all equally. The employment involves vulnerable teenagers being taught in a challenging but positive environment and the Respondent is grateful to the Complainant and her colleagues for their co-operation in making improvements in the circumstances. It is sincerely believed that the Complainant’s issues have been dealt with to the best of the Respondent’s ability.

Long dispute, compensation for flaws in handling it.