Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Sales Assistant

A Retail Store

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-00033338-001

20/12/2019

The complainant is employed with the respondent company since September 1998 as a Sales Assistant. She states that on 4 July 2019, she raised a question with her Store manager, Mr. D in relation to a rumour she heard about overtime, she had heard that there was to be no more extra hours available and that if any do become available, they would be given to the newer staff on the lower rate. She states that Mr. D said that this rumour was not true and that he would mention it to Ms. A, Commercial Manager and then walked away. The complainant submits that minutes later, Ms. A told her to follow her and they went into the office. The complainant states that Ms. A’s manner completely changed, that she was very angry, intimidating, leaning forward and intruding on the complainant’s personal space. She states that Ms. A said “I’m so disappointed in you, so disappointed” and castigated the complainant for speaking to Mr. D about the overtime hours. The complainant states that Ms. A launched a verbal attack on her and when the complainant got up to leave the office Ms A shouted in a angry tone “Sit back down in that chair”. The complainant states that she tried to go and get Mr. D in order to clarify the exact conversation that had transpired but Ms. A said this issue was between her and the complainant.

The complainant states that on Saturday 6 July 2019, she met Ms. A in the staff toilets. Ms. A asked the complainant if she was finished for the day . The complainant replied to Ms. A that she was not comfortable speaking to her while on her own and left the bathroom. The complainant states that Ms. A wanted a mediation meeting as she felt that the complainant ignored her in the staff toilets.

The complainant states that a facilitative meeting was held with Mr. D on 18 July but that it was not conducted properly and there was no resolution found. The complainant raised a formal grievance relating to the matter on 2 August 2019. The complainant states that she has twice requested the camera footage from 4 July to be viewed but has been refused. The complainant has misgivings in which the respondent dealt with her grievance both at the initial stage and during the appeal process and submitted that the process was completely flawed. The complainant submits that the unwarranted ill treatment has had an enormous effect on her both physically and psychologically.

The complainant commenced with the respondent company in September 1998 as a Sales Advisor. The complainant alleged that on 4 July 2019, Ms. A (another member of staff) behaved in an inappropriate way towards her in an office on the Food Hall. The respondent states that a facilitated meeting was held by the Store Manager, Mr. D in an attempt to resolve the matter on 18 of July 2019. The matter was not resolved and the meeting ended. On 2 August 2019, the complainant lodged a formal grievance against Ms A, Commercial Manager.

On 9 August 2019, Ms. B HR Manager wrote to the complainant confirming that she would hear the grievance. It was also confirmed that as the complainant was certified sick from work at that time, the hearing would take place on her return. On 20 August 2019, when the complainant returned to work, Ms. B wrote again to the complainant confirming that she would hear her grievance on 12 September 2019.

The respondent states that on 12 September and in line with the company’s grievance process, Ms. B accompanied by Mr. K (HR Manager) carried out an investigation into this matter. The complainant was accompanied by her union representative. It is submitted that there were 7 witnesses interviewed with an 8th witness declining to give a statement. A grievance report was produced stating that there was no case to answer by Ms. A. On 15 October 2019, the complainant appealed the grievance outcome to Ms. F, Head of HR.

The respondent states that on 23 October Ms. F responded advising that the appeal hearing would be heard by Ms. B HR Manager. On 29 October Ms B, HR Manager wrote to the complainant confirming that she would hear the appeal on 18 November 2019. Ms. B heard this appeal and confirmed her decision in writing on 3 December 2019 which was to uphold the original decision.

It is submitted that the complainant did not return to work after 4 December 2019 and her medical certificates stated that she was absent on work related stress. The respondent asserts that on 2 January 2020, Ms. B HR Manager wrote to the complainant and requested a meeting to discuss her absence. On 8 January 2020 Ms. B met with the complainant who was accompanied by her union representative to discuss her absence. It is submitted that Ms. B outlined the content of this meeting in a letter to the complainant dated 13 January 2020.

Respondent’s Main Points

The respondent outlines that the matter has been fully investigated in accordance with the Grievance and Appeals policy. The outcome of the appeal was to uphold the original outcome of the grievance. The respondent submits that Mr. D in an attempt to resolve the situation held a facilitated meeting to address the issues the complainant raised but the meeting closed without resolution.

The respondent contends that Ms. B in the Grievance outcome concluded that both the complainant’s and Ms A’s version of events were different and that it was impossible to determine if either of them acted in an inappropriate way. It is submitted that the complainant as part of her grievance raised concerns that she was no longer “getting extra hours” in the Store because she had raised a grievance. Ms. C and Ms. R, both Section Managers on the Food Hall where the complainant works confirmed that the complainant had advised that she would be only working her contract whilst the issue was unresolved.

The respondent maintains that Ms. B reviewed the complainant’s hours over the previous 6 months and it supports Ms. A’s assertion that she has supported the complainant on a regular basis with extra hours to include those hours which incur premium rates. It is submitted that Ms. B in her Grievance Outcome recommended that an Independent Manager hold a meeting with the complainant and Ms. A to “clear the air” but the complainant declined this offer. The respondent states that, while the complainant has argued that the investigation process is flawed, it fully investigated the matter but there was no evidence to support the complainant’s allegations.

The respondent contends that while the complainant asserts that she has exhausted all avenues, this is not the case. It submits that the complainant was offered a facilitated meeting by an Independent Manager following the grievance hearing but she declined this offer. The respondent asserts that the complainant was asked at the Grievance Appeal by Mr. B on a number of occasions what she wanted from the appeal but the complainant would not say. It is submitted that at the meeting on 8 January 2020 with Ms. B, the complainant was offered the option of moving to another area of the Store or to another Store but the complainant declined both options.

Conclusion

The respondent reiterates that the matter was fully investigated. It is submitted that the complainant requested in her Grievance letter on 2 August 2019 that Ms. A provide a “formal apology so that I can continue to focus on the job that I have loved doing for the last 21 years with dignity and respect, in a safe working environment”. The respondent submits that there was no evidence or witnesses to corroborate the complainant’s allegation therefore the company is not in a position to ask Ms. A to provide the “formal apology”. The respondent contends that there have been several attempts made to understand what outcome the complainant wants outside of there being no evidence to support her allegations. This has included a move to another area of the Store or to another Store. This offer was made to try to resolve the matter albeit there was no case to answer by Ms. A. The respondent states that it is also important to note that the complainant works 2 days per week and shift patterns with Ms. A would have crossover every second week. It states that, in addition, the line of report is to the Section Management category and not Commercial Management of which Ms. A is one. However, the respondent stated on the day of the hearing that Ms. A as of the previous week has now taken up another management role in a different store as part of the company’s normal succession process.

In conclusion, the respondent states that it carried out a thorough investigation in line with its procedures and policies but there was no evidence to corroborate the complainant’s version of events.

I have carefully considered the respective positions of both parties to the within dispute.

I recommend that the parties agree to a mediation process to find a resolution to the within dispute. In this regard, I recommend that a senior HR Manager (from a different branch of the respondent organisation) is immediately engaged to attempt a comprehensive resolution to the matter. This process should be commenced within 6 weeks of the date of this decision and should be completed in a timely manner.

I recommend that the parties agree to a mediation process to find a resolution to the within dispute. In this regard, I recommend that a senior HR Manager (from a different branch of the respondent organisation) is immediately engaged to attempt a comprehensive resolution to the matter. This process should be commenced within 6 weeks of the date of this decision and should be completed in a timely manner.