ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00023561

Parties:

Complaint(s):

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 18/12/2019

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

CA-00030173-001

Industrial Relations Act 1969

Background

The claimant submitted that she had an issue with another employee on the 2nd December 2018

The claimant stated that she was not happy with the way that the respondent had dealt with it.

The respondent for their part submitted they had done everything possible to resolve the situation and they set out a chronological of events and related documentation with dates and times and statements to support their position.

The initial complaint came from employee (JK) who had submitted a detailed statement to the respondent while the claimant set her complaint in writing to CNM (G O’C). The respondent submitted that the complaint made by the other employee (JK) was about the behaviour of the claimant.

The claimant submitted that CNM (GOC) was very sympathetic to her experience and put protective measures in place. The claimant added that she experienced further conflict with other members of staff and that these incidents were reported with statements to the respondent.

In accordance with the respondent’s grievance procedure staff was interviewed. However, they denied there was any intimidation.

The claimant reported other incidents of intimidation tactics to the management and again the respondent complied with their grievance procedure and accommodation measures were reinforced.

Mediation was offered, however the other party, the subject of the grievance, refused to participate in mediation and subsequently went out sick on stress leave.

The respondent submitted that they went above and beyond what is required of them in respect of the grievance procedure. The matter was escalated to HR and to the Health and safety Officer. An independent Industrial Relations Office (MD) was contracted to carry out the investigation.

No finding in favour of either party was made by any of these people and therefore a decision was made, due to staff needs to move the claimant to another area of the respondent

The respondent submitted that the investigation was fair and in line with the respondent procedures and both parties had the support of their Trade Union

It was submitted this is a case of one employee’s word against another with no witnesses.

The claimant had requested to be transferred to location near her home town which was under consideration

The claimant subsequently resigned the position and took up employment with another organisation.

Findings

I find that having carefully examined all documentation that respondent did comply with its procedures.

I find that an independent person was engaged to mediate between the parties. I find that the claimant has requested to be transferred to a location close to her home town that that was under serious consideration by the respondent.

I find the complaint still felt aggrieved however I find the respondent had done everything they could to solve the issue.

I find that mediation is voluntary for the parties, however if one decides not to participate there is nothing that can be done .

Recommendation

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

I cannot support the claimant’s complaint and I would uphold the respondent’s position, however I would recommend that in the absence of mediation that the respondent consider providing counselling.

Dated:   24-03-2020

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim O'Connell

Key Words: