Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A senior employee

A large employer

Representatives

Marie Corcoran

Emily Sexton Comyn Kelleher Tobin Solicitors

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-00031467-001

09/10/2019

The worker is employed by the employer in a senior management role.  The employer received a complainant under its Dignity at Work policy concerning the employee.

The employee’s position is that she has been consistently victimised during the process of the Dignity at Work investigation.  She noted that no formal or informal discussion was undertaken with regard to the issues raised.  It was also noted that the staff member who made the complaint no longer worked in one of the employee’s departments.

The employee noted that mediation was only offered after the formal investigation process had begun and the employee was awaiting certain responses to correspondence relating the matter.  The employee suggested that a number of steps outlined in the procedure document were not followed, particularly where the preliminary screening procedure was concerned.

The employee submitted that the investigation was set to be outsourced without the agreement of the employee. The employee submitted that due process and fair procedures have been denied in relation to this procedure which has already taken five years.

The employee raised a number of issues in relation to GDPR impacts of some of the steps taken by the employer.

The employee is anxious for the process to be brought to an end and is seeking a recommendation that the Dignity at Work complaint process be set aside.

The employer does not accept the position as set out by the employee and submitted that it has attempted to address any issues raised by the employee.

The employer submitted a chronology of events outlining the investigation and the time delays in moving matters forward.  The employer submitted that to a large extent the delays in the process were caused by circumstances outside its control, including periods of leave and unavailability and the determination of preliminary issues. Retirements of certain key staff have also been a factor.

The employer does not accept that the matter has been dealt with contrary to the policy.

The employer outlined that it had an obligation to investigate any complaint that was submitted to it and that in that regard, recourse may be taken at any point in the process. The employer also refuted certain suggestions raised by the employee.

The employer submitted that there had been no deliberate delay at any stage in the Dignity at Work investigation.  The employer also submitted that it has a duty to conduct a thorough, objective and confidential investigation to complaints raised under the Dignity at Work process.

The respondent is hoping that the recommendation will allow it to move forward with the Dignity at Work investigation because it has a duty to afford fair procedures to both parties to the investigation.

Having considered the submissions from both parties, which are at odds as to how the process should proceed, I find that the process has taken five years so far, due to various circumstances which are outside of the control of one or other party, i.e. annual and maternity leave, retirements, investigation of preliminary matters, etc and that this delay has impacted on the level of trust between the parties.  However, I cannot find for the employee as the employer also has a duty to the staff member who took the complaint under the Dignity at Work policy at the outset.

I conclude that the most effect way forward is to wrap up the process as short a time frame as possible at this stage having regard to the duty to ensure a fair process to both parties to the complaint and to the employer.

I also conclude that the process would benefit by allowing the employee to be represented by a nominee of her choosing for the remainder of the investigation.

My recommendation is that the employer proceed with its investigation of the complaint it has received under its dignity at work procedure.

I also recommend that the employee cooperates with the investigation process and further recommend that the employer allows the employee to be represented by a representative of her choosing during that process given that it would be difficult in the circumstances to find a representative from within the categories provided for in the normal course of such investigations.

I recommend that the employer aims to conclude the investigative process within a six- to eight-week period from the date of this recommendation.

IR recommendation, Dignity at Work investigation