Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Cleaner

Contract Cleaners

Representatives

Mr. Vadim Karpenko,First National Consulting and Legal Services

Mr. Hugh Hegarty, Management Support Services (Ireland) Ltd

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00033990-001

25/01/2020

The Worker commenced employment with the Employer on 25th August 2014. At all times her role was that of “cleaning operative”, for which she received a weekly payment of €350. On 25th January 2020, the Worker referred the present trade dispute to the Commission, with the Employer’s representative positivly engaging in the process on 10th February.  A hearing in relation to this matter was convened and finalised on 15th December 2020. Some minor technical issues were experienced during the hearing, however the matter proceeded and was finalised to the satisfaction of all parties.

It was the position of the Worker that she made complaints of bullying and harassment that were not investigated or incompletely investigated. The position of the Respondent was that all the Worker’s grievances were investigated via means of a fair and balanced process and that the mater had concluded.

No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the dispute were raised at any stage of the proceedings.

At the outset of the hearing, the Worker set out a number of difficulties she experienced with the supervisor. These difficulties resulted in the Worker refereeing the matter to her direct line manager on 25nd August 2016. Despite requesting a formal investigation into these complaints, no response was received. 

In November 2018, the Worker began to experience further difficulties with her supervisor. In particular, she described an instance whereby her pre-booked annual leave was cancelled on short notice. This caused the Worker a significant amount of stress, resulting in her being absent from work for a number of months. On 18th July 2019, the Worker sent a complaint to her line manager regarding the manner in which her supervisor was completing the rosters for the forthcoming week. Shortly after making this complaint, the Worker was approached by her supervisor who shouted at her for making the complaint and threatened to inform management that her work was unsatisfactory if she did not retract same. Following this incident, the Worker raised a formal grievance regarding the conduct of her supervisor. The Worker attended her GP was certified as unfit for work thereafter. 

In August 2019, the Worker, along with a number of her colleagues, submitted a collective complaint relating to her supervisor’s behaviour.  On 30th August, the Employer rejected each of the grievances issued as part of the group complaint. This was appealed, with the Employer confirming the previous decision to reject the allegation raised on 2nd October 2019.

Following a period of illness absence, the Worker was certified as certified as fit to work on 15th November 2019. On 15th November the Worker attended a grievance meeting accompanied by her trade union representative. Here the Worker made two separate allegations regarding alleged mistreatment at the hands of her supervisor. She also alleged that she had not been paid for public holidays for the previous five years. Again, the Employer dismissed each of the Worker’s grievances. This outcome was again appealed, with the Employer upholding the dismissal of the Worker’s grievances on appeal.   

By submission, the Worker alleged that she is subjected to ongoing verbal abuse and was consistently bullied by her Supervisor. The Worker submitted that the Employer did nothing to prevent this bullying and did not properly investigate her allegations when raised. In particular, the Worker was aggrieved that relevant witnesses were not interviewed as part of the process. As a consequence of the same, she submitted that the bullying allegations were not properly investigated by the Employer.      

By response, the Employer submitted that the Worker’s grievances were fully investigated, with the Worker being afforded fair procedures throughout the process.

The Worker commenced employment with the Employer on 25th August 2014. On 18th July 2019 the Worker raised a grievance under the Employer’s grievance procedure. Herein, the Worker complained that her supervisor was acting unreasonably in compiling the weekly roster. On that date the Worker commenced period of certified sick leave. In November 2019 the Worker was certified as fit to return to work, and a grievance meeting was scheduled for 15th November. At this meeting the Worker raised two issues regarding the conduct of her supervisor and a further allegation that she was not paid public holidays for the previous five years. Following investigation and consideration of the same, the Worker’s grievances were not upheld.  

Approximately the same time the Worker’s grievances were being heard, Worker and five other colleagues raised a collective grievance regarding the ongoing behaviour of her supervisor. Again, this grievance was not upheld, in part due to a lack of independent evidence corroborating the allegations. This outcome was duly appealed by the employees, among the grounds of appeal was an allegation that witnesses to the alleged behaviour were not interviewed and the supervisor herself was not interviewed. Following a hearing in relation to the same, the earlier decision was upheld. In so finding, the Employer stated that all relevant witnesses, including the Supervisor, were interviewed as part of the process. The Employer stated that other witnesses identified were not employees of the Employer and consequently they could not be called to give evidence in the matter. 

In summary, the Employer submitted that the Worker’s grievances had been fully and thoroughly investigated. This investigation was conducted in accordance with the Employer’s own procedures and any applicable code of practice. Having regard to the same, the Employer submitted that the dispute be resolved in their favour.

In answer to a question, the representative for the Employer confirmed that they had a separate policies for inter-personal and non inter-personal grievances. 

At the hearing of this matter, it became apparent that the Worker’s issues had two separate components. Firstly, she was concerned regarding the conditions of her employment, i.e. the payment of public holidays. Secondly, she made significant inter-personal allegations regarding her supervisor.

While I have not had sight of the Employer’s bullying and harassment procedure, it would be normal course that the same would provide for the interview of both parties and all relevant witnesses. While the Employer has stated that all relevant witnesses were interviewed as part of the process, it is evident that the Worker never had sight of the same, and indeed the transcripts of the interviews were not produced at the hearing. During such a process, the Worker should have the ability to comment on any findings arising from these transcripts prior to the final report being issued. Simply insisting that the Worker take the Employer’s word that all relevant witnesses were interviewed without providing any details of who these witnesses were and what they said falls short of the Employer’s duties in this regard.

In so finding I am guided by the terms of Statutory Instrument 674/2020, entitled the “Code of Practice for Employers and Employees on the Prevention and Resolution of Bullying at Work”. Section 4.2.2 of the same expressly states that,

“Statements from all parties, including witnesses should be recorded in writing as the use of written statements tends to make matters clearer from the outset and maintains clarity throughout the investigation. Copies of the record of their statements should be given to those who make statements to the investigator. Copies should also be provided to the complainant and the person complained of and should result in findings of fact only.”

Having regard to the foregoing, I find in favour of the Worker and recommend that the Employer commence an investigation into the allegations made by the Worker under the terms of Statutory Instrument 674/2020, with the findings of the earlier investigations set aside (as regards this Worker only). In particular, I recommend that all relevant witness statements be issued to the Worker in accordance with Section 4.2.2 above. For the avoidance of doubt I make no recommendation and have no view as regards the outcome of said investigation.

CA-00033990 – Dispute under the Industrial Relations Acts

I recommend in favour of the Worker.  I recommend that the Employer commence an investigation into the allegations made by the Worker under the terms of Statutory Instrument 674/2020, with the findings of the earlier investigations set aside (as regards this Worker only).

Bullying allegations, Statutory Instrument 674/2020