ADJ-00036368

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Sales Assistant

Household products retailer

Representatives

Stevroy Steer Law Solicitors

Sarah Treacy In-House legal.  Ms Rachel Duffy, B.L.

The worker was employed as a sales assistant with the respondent initially from 2003- 2010. His second period of employment commenced on April 2016 and extended up until April 2020.

 His fortnightly gross wage was €1081. He worked 40 hours a week. He left the company in March 2021.

He submitted his dispute to the WRC on the 14 September 2020. 

The worker made complaints to the employer HR Director and HR Business Partner in April 2020 concerning bullying behaviour by fellow-workers towards him. The employer provided him with the grievance procedure. The worker states that he did not activate this procedure to process his complaints as it was not the correct procedure and the company were aware of his concerns and didn’t address them. His complaint was not a grievance.

He was diagnosed with work-place stress related illness on 2 April 2020 owing to the employer’s failure to act on his complaints. The employer refused to pay him for absences on sick leave even though his illness was, in part, attributable to their failure to protect him from illness resulting from an injury sustained while engaged in the disposal of rat waste on the employer’s premises.

He was out on sick leave until March 2021.

The worker’s representative stated that the employer has failed to provide a safe place of work for the worker pursuant to the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005.

Concerning the alleged breach of the Safety, Health and Welfare at work Act 2005, the employer states that the WRC has no jurisdiction to investigate a complaint of an alleged failure by the employer to provide a safe place of work for the worker. This matter is already before the Courts in the Personal Injury claim taken by the worker against his employer.

The employer offered the worker the means of examining his complaints of bullying via their grievance procedure. He walked away from this option.

The worker was unclear about the scope of this Act, the capacity to deliver a remedy and his preferred remedy. He was not assisted by his representative stating that he had no instructions from the worker.

There are two elements to the worker’s complaint; the alleged failure of the employer to provide a safe place of work and the failure of the employer to deal effectively with his complaints of bullying.

It is correct that jurisdiction lies with the Health and Safety Authority and not with the WRC to investigate alleged breaches of the Safety, Health and Welfare at work Act 2005.

Concerning the complaints of bullying, it is accepted that the worker was offered the agreed procedures necessary to investigate his complaints and that he chose not to do so.

It is accepted that the use of internal procedures is a precondition for the referral of a dispute for investigation to the WRC.

While the employer operated according to the book, they did not go much beyond that to alleviate the worker’s stress or address gaps in his comprehension of the situation. It is abundantly clear that the worker had an acute sense of being seriously wronged. The worker is no longer with the employer.

 I recommend that the employer put their Employee Assistance Services (or a similar professional service if they do  not have such a service) at the disposal of the worker to enable him to come to terms with his experiences with the employer.

I recommend that the employer put their Employee Assistance Services (or a similar professional service if they not have such a service) at the disposal of the worker to enable him to come to terms with his experiences with the employer.

Recommend EAP services.