ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00020807

Parties:

Complaint(s):

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 28/01/2020

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim O'Connell

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969] following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.

Summary of Claimants Position:

The claimant commenced working for the respondent as a cleaner on the 1st January 2005.

The claimant feels she’s been singled out for unfair treatment along with being undermined.

Following on from lodging of a complaint, the claimant feels she’s been bullied.

This was just one incident of many an investigation was held on 6th June 2018 whereby the claimant was charged with the following allegations;

1. alleged inappropriate behaviour in response to the bank holiday roster displayed in the basement Friday 18th of May 2018,
2. inappropriate behaviour in the workplace, raising voice and appearing aggressive
3. failure to comply with the respondent’s Dignity at Work Policy
4. Alleged approaching and questioning work colleagues in an appropriate manner in relation to work rosters on Sunday, 20 May 2018.

The Respondent directly investigated these matters, all of which were totally refuted by the claimant.

The claimant and her SIPTU Official requested to have these matters investigated by an external party who was completely independent and impartial to the process.

The respondent refused this request thereby denying the claimant the right to the terms of natural justice, the standard of fair and reasonable procedures and critically important; the failure to follow due process as required into these matters.

The claimant was seeking €10, 000 in compensation.

Summary of the Respondent’s Position:

The respondent provides a wide range of market leading facilities services and solutions to clients across Ireland

It is the respondent’s position that the complaint is not well founded.

The respondent submits that the claimant has raised grievances through the grievance procedure which were fully investigated, under the respondent’s Bullying and Harassment policy, and an outcome was issued.

Whilst the same claimant lodged an appeal, she subsequently did not cooperate with the appeal by not involving herself in the appeal and, instead, referred the matter to the WRC and in doing so is not complying with the procedures which she (the claimant) maintains the respondent has not followed.

The respondent contended this matter is not properly before the WRC, as a claimant should have exhausted all internal procedures before submitting it to the WRC in accordance with best practice and in response procedures which she is initiated by.

The claimant lodged a complaint with the WRC on the 9th October 2019 (apparently) to being singled out. A further complaint was received by the WRC on the 29th March 2019 and on the 4th April the complaint lodged on the 9th October2018 was withdrawn.

The claimant lodged a further complaint with the respondent at local level on the 21st December 2018

The respondent carried out an investigation which was concluded on the 11th February 2019 and a report was issued to the claimant and allowing her 7 days to review and respond.

All documents including the report were sent to the respondent’s operation manager who concluded that there was no basis for concluding the claimant was being bullied in the workplace. The respondent wrote to the claimant on the 12th March 2019 with their findings and the claimant appealed the findings on the 14th March 2019.

The respondent submitted that an appeal hearing was scheduled for the 29th March 2019 and the claimant indicated she could not attend.

The respondent believes this is an important issue as they employ, in Ireland alone, approximately 6000 employees and if all employees believe they could ignore the respondent’s procedures this would seriously undermine the grievance process within the respondent’s business

Findings:

Both parties made substantial written and verbal submissions at the hearing

I find there is an onus on the parties to ensure that the internal procedures are in the first instance exhausted and completed prior to a complaint being referred to the WRC.

I also find that, where there are large number of workers employed, all internal procedures should be exhausted prior to having an external investigator considered

I find since the 3rd January 2018 until 29th of March 2019 a total of 93 interactions took place between the parties.

I find that this is an extraordinary number in a modern-day employment situation.

I find that the relationship between the parties has substantially deteriorated.

I find that an award of compensation is not going to resolve this case and I am making the following

Recommendation:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

A            I cannot recommend concession of the unions claim for compensation.

B            the parties engage in mediation if necessary, under the auspices of the WRC to try and resolve the issues outstanding once and for all

C            The claimant is offered alternative employment at a respondent’s site with similar terms and conditions of employment

Dated:   12-06-2020

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim O'Connell

Key Words: