Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Security Officer

A Security Business

Representatives

  Appeared in person

Hugh Hegarty, Management Support Services (Ireland) Ltd

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-00039447-001

31/08/2020

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and SI 359/2020, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

This is a Dispute between the Worker, a Security Officer and his Employer, a Security Company. Details of the dispute were forwarded to the WRC on 31 August 2020.

The Worker presented his own case and the Employer was represented by MSS ltd.

The Worker provided a written outline of his case on the complaint form and the Employer made a submission in response in advance of the hearing.

The Employer submitted that the correct name of the Employer is as referenced above and agreed to amend title on consent.

The Worker commenced employment as a Security Officer in November 2018, before transferring to this Employers company by way of TUPE (Transfer of Undertakings) in 2019.He worked a 48-hour fortnight until he increased his hours to 62 hours per fortnight in August 2020.

On 31 August 2020, he forwarded details of a workplace dispute to the WRC which can be summarised as a complaint about Bullying and Harassment procedures.

The Worker stated that he had been a victim of harassment at work by a fellow employee in the Summer of 2019. He had reported the matter to his Manager   and concluded that nothing was done until his health was affected. He had lost data on these episodes as he had changed his mobile phone.

 He stated that he had been moved to another work location, while the alleged protagonist had remained at his base. He furnished the Employer with a Statement during his sick leave, which lasted 2 weeks. He took issue at the delay which occurred before the alleged protagonist, who was also his brother had called him to give a response.

 He made a concurrent claim to the Gardai. He outlined that the Human Resources Dept had indicated that they would host a meeting between both employees to address the conflict. The Worker did not believe that he could manage a face to face encounter.

At hearing, the Worker clarified several matters in this case. He had not made a formal written complaint of bullying or harassment. Instead, he had raised the matter by text. He told the hearing that his brother habitually walked past his work base, where he was posted and taunted him with insults and death threats. He explained that he had not spoken to him in over 20 years and had been very disturbed to receive these insults at work. He tried to get Management to cease this treatment and understood that he had reported the matter.

The upset caused him to take two weeks sick leave. The Worker freely acknowledged that the conflict between both brothers and now both employees was historical and spilled over into the domestic setting when a family member had passed away early in 2020.

The Worker told the hearing that he had asked to be relocated as his Personal life had been affected by this treatment. He made a parallel complaint to the Gardai which is now closed as they were unable to secure camera evidence of the interactions.

The Worker confirmed that the relocation had been good for him, his new base was nearer home and the negative behaviour had stopped. When asked how he saw the matter resolving, he pointed to the inordinate delay in securing a response to his complaint from the alleged protagonist and this remained unresolved for him. He also took issue that on transfer of employment to his present Employer, he had not been provided with a staff handbook. Therefore, he was at a loss on how to raise a matter of such magnitude in the workplace properly. He believed that this omission caused him harm.

The Worker is currently on sick leave due to a separate condition.

The Employer attended the hearing prepared to address the complaint as lodged. They understood they were being requested to address a claim for compulsory relocation of the Worker and the wanted to clarify that the relocation which occurred in August 2019 was requested by the Worker and acceded to by the Employer.

The Employer listened to the Workers stated case and offered the following clarifications. A staff handbook is made available in every store. The Employer confirmed that they were prepared to forward a copy of the staff handbook in written form to the Workers home immediately.

The Employer representative confirmed that the company employed two brothers as employees on two different sites, some distance apart. The Employer contended that the alleged protagonist had acted as a Private Citizen, acting on his own behest and was not directed by the Company when he behaved in a negative manner towards the Worker.

The Employer reflected that the scenario as highlighted by the Worker was not comprehended by company Policies and he had been directed to the Gardai to resolve the personal matter.

The Employer confirmed that they had met with the Worker on 9 July 2019, where he raised receiving death threats and other broad comments on family matters.

The Employer understood the matter had been resolved when the Worker was accommodated in a relocation more favourable to his home location. No further instances of negative behaviour were reported by the Worker. Both brothers remained as employees at the company.

The Employer Representative confirmed that the fellow employee had countered the workers reports of negative behaviour and had equally reported received negative behaviour from the Worker.

The Employer confirmed that there had been a turnover in key Management assigned to manage this case and confirmed the present-day Manager.

The Employer accepted that the company had a duty of care towards the worker and understood by facilitating a transfer which led to a cessation of the negative behaviour, they understood that the matter had been resolved amicably in the informal arena. The Worker did not flag this issue in the wake of his transfer.

In addressing their response to the Workers wish for closure in the case. The Employer contended that they were unaware of the reason for the delay in seeking a response from the fellow employee, outside of his being on holidays. They were more than happy to forward an actual copy of the staff handbook directly to the Worker at his home.

I have given careful consideration to both parties oral and written submissions. This is a dispute which arose when the Worker understood that he was not being heard in the workplace. The Employer came to the table in earnest and was robust in their response that they had acceded to the workers request for a safe workplace and had safely interpreted this as closure as no further incidents were reported.

From my point of view, I wanted to know why the worker had referred the case to the WRC when he had agreed to relocate on a more favourable basis in early August 2020? I explained that a worker is expected to have exhausted the local grievance procedure prior to being heard at the Workplace Relations Commission.

At that point, I learned that the Worker had not been familiarised with the staff handbook. For some reason, he had missed it at his base store, but I must accept that the Worker was not versed in raising a complaint in the workplace and just how to direct it through informal and formal channels. The Employer has a statutory obligation to ensure that the worker has a safe place to work. The Worker is further obliged to report matters which may impinge on his safety, but in a measured and approved manner and certainly not through text messaging.

I am not going to make a judgement on the events which were reported as having occurred between two brothers inside and outside a workplace. My role is to analyse the procedural framework relied on by the parties. I must honestly conclude that there is a substantial scope for improvement in how both parties navigated the procedural pathway in this case.

Perhaps the introduction of the staff handbook, taken in tandem with the newly published Code of Practice on Bullying WRC and Health and Safety Authority, December 2020 might serve collectively as useful tools on a going forward basis.

The Code of Practice points to Organisational culture where good leadership, proper communication, staff training all contribute to a supportive and effective conflict resolution through either an informal or formal pathway. However, most importantly it challenges both worker and employer to play meaningful roles in an early resolution of conflict.

This complaint to WRC is somewhat pre-mature as I am satisfied that the worker accepted a relocation as a resolution to his negative experiences at work. I find that he lost his way a little in the co-existence of parallel complaints, orally at work and orally to the Gardai. I accept that a period of bereavement was also in the background.

It is very important for me that I respect that this is a live employment relationship and I don’t wish to unsettle the goodwill already present between the parties.

However, I have found some merit in the workers dispute, particularly in the absence of a readily available notification of company policies.

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

I have found some merit in this dispute and I recommend that both parties engage in the following course of action to strengthen the working relationship.

Both parties are to accept that the relocation to the Workers current base was consensual and amounted to an informal resolution of the workers stated complaints.

That immediately on the Workers return to work, both he and his Manager arrange a mutually convenient time to meet to address the following.

1. The Worker is to sign acceptance of the staff handbook and ask for and receive any clarification on any procedural points going forward.

2. The Employer is to provide the Worker with a copy of the Workplace Relations Commission/ Health and Safety Authority Code of practice on Bullying effective from 23 December 2020 and any requested training in its application in the workplace.

3. The Employer is to inform the Worker of the Incident Report mechanism for recording untoward events experienced in the workplace. The Worker should immediately desist from reporting any incident by text message.

4. In recognition of the unfortunate confusion and delays in the resolution of this issue, which were unfair to the Worker, I order the Employer to provide three days extra annual leave to the Worker for the annual leave year 2021, as closure and in full and final settlement of all matters arising from this issue.

This is to be a once off gesture and cannot be quoted as precedent.

Both parties should go forward in mutual respect and application of the procedural framework of the company policies.

Procedural pathway of a Grievance.