Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Driver

Medical Service Provider

Representatives

none 

Emer Murphy Lavelle 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-00035540-001

01/04/2020

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport) (Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012

CA-00035540-002

01/04/2020

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00035540-003

01/04/2020

The Complainant commenced employment as a driver with the Respondent on 30 January 2019.  He was paid an average of €1,600 per month. A Complaint Form was received by the WRC on 1 April 2020.

The worker submits that in September 2019 he brought forward ideas on how things could be improved in work, however following this his hours were reduced. The worker submits that in December 2019 he had discussions with a colleague driver about the road worthiness of one of the cars.  After their discussions the worker raised concerns about what he had witnessed with another driver.  This was relayed to the original driver who took it upon himself to call the worker and verbally threaten him and his job security.  This phone call had a very negative impact on the worker. Following the call, the worker found he was being ostracised by his driver colleagues.  The worker initiated a grievance about the situation on 20 January 2020.  The worker was asked to drop the grievance by his manager.  Although the grievance was found to be “unsubstantiated”, the worker feels he has been painted as the awkward employee for not dropping the grievance when he was asked.   A second grievance raised by him in September 2020, was also found to be “unsubstantiated”. The worker feels he has been discriminated against for raising safety issues. This was highlighted after he refused to drive a van which he believed to be unsafe.  Due to the difficulties at work he went on certified sick leave for a period.

The worker stated that although he is happy with what the employer has done regarding policies and procedures, he has suffered during the period in question and he believes some compensation is warranted.

Regarding this complaint the employer submits that the worker has raised two grievances.  When the first grievance was raised the employer carried out an investigation. Regarding the issue of bullying/ harassment the complaint was unsubstantiated. The worker appealed the findings which upheld the investigation findings.

The employer submits that the worker lodged a second grievance.  Following an investigation, the employer found that the allegations of mistreatment and discrimination which were included in the grievance were not substantiated.

The employer submits that there are policies in place and a Company Handbook which sets out those policies. Actions were taken because of the issues raised.  Mediation was attempted but it was not successful.

The employer submits that it has dealt with all the issues raised by the worker fairly and afforded him all procedures.

In concluding the employer stated that although they had sympathy for the worker it was not the employer’s fault nor is the employer liable for any injury that may have been suffered by the worker. Regarding the worker’s view on compensation the employer submitted that the issues raised by the worker were investigated fully and the employer carried out all its obligations, therefore compensation is not necessary.

I recommend the employer make an ex-gratia award of €800.00 to the worker in recognition of the difficulties he experienced in late 2019 and early 2020.

The Respondent submits that the Complainant, due to the type of role he carries out, does not fall within the scope of Regulation 18.  The Respondent submits that the complaint is misconceived under this Regulation and therefore no decision can be made.

The Complainant submits that although he may have inadvertently “clicked” on the wrong item when compiling his Complaint Form, he put forward that there was absolutely no transparency in relation to the vans and maintenance etc. He felt he was being discriminated against for bringing forward issues.

The Regulations apply to mobile workers employed in road transport activity where the use of a tachograph is required.  They do not apply to taxi drivers, chauffeurs and drivers of small vans or buses capable of carrying fewer than nine people (including the driver).  Therefore, the Complainant does not fall within the scope of the Regulations.

For the reasons outlined above I have decided that I do not have jurisdiction to make a decision on this complaint.

The worker submits that he entered this complaint without advice and stated that this complaint was the same as CA-00035540-001 above.  He also stated that no disciplinary action had been taken against him.

The employer submitted that no disciplinary action had been taken against the worker and that any issues he raised have been addressed.

The employer did accept that the issues around this case had had an impact on the worker.

I make no recommendation in relation to this dispute.

Safety concerns, grievance, driving, impact.