ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00027207
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Postal Operative | A Postal Company |
Representatives | Jarlath Henegan CWU |
|
Complaint(s):
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-00034815-001 | 24/02/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/01/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gerry Rooney
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.
Background:
The Employee has been employed as a Postal Operative with the Employer, a postal company, since June 2010. The dispute refers to the alleged failure of the Employer to complete an investigation of a bullying complaint raised by the Employee in 2018, and delays in his return to work.
Summary of Employee’s Case
The Employee maintained that he had submitted a complaint of bullying in early 2018 and having met with two HR managers of the company to deal with his complaint the matter was never concluded. The Employee submitted that in October 2018 he was advised that the investigation was concluded, he received an extract of the report that applied to him, and he was told that the Employer’s head of Employee Relations would conclude matters in due course. The Employee heard nothing further from the Employer and was never provided with the opportunity to appeal the findings. In addition, the Employee submitted that he had not been advised that he was entitled to be assisted in the process by a trade union representative.
As a consequence, the Employee contended he has been on work related stress. He submitted that he was seen by the Occupational Health Department in June 2019 but has received no contact from the Employer since then. The Employee maintains he has suffered significant financial loss of earnings and believes he should be compensated for this loss. In addition, he was seeking for immediate arrangements to be put in place to enable him to return to work.
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Employer submitted that the Employee raised issues about his manager and a work leader in 2018. These matters were taken seriously and investigated by the HR manager and the outcome was issued to the Employee in October 2018. At that time the Employee was afforded an opportunity to appeal the outcome, but he did not do so. The Employer argued that instead of adhering to the appeal process as set out tin the Dignity at Work Policy, the Employee referred the complaint to the WRC. The Employer advised the Policy states “If the internal procedures do not lead to a resolution of the complaint, then the case may be referred to an independent third party…however this should only happen once the internal procedures have been exhausted”.
Furthermore, the Employer submitted that the Employee’s absence was due to a back injury that occurred on circa 3rd April 2019, and not due to work related stress. This was supported with confirmation from its occupational Health Advisor. The Employer further acknowledged that whilst it was intended to follow up with the Employee about his absence some weeks after the 14th May 2019 the Employer did not do so.
The Employer proposed the Employee could address his concerns through the agreed internal procedures.
Conclusions and Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
Having considered the matter I recommend that the Employer appoints an independent third party to review the outcome of the Investigation in accordance with that stage of its Dignity at Work procedures. In addition, and in light of the fact the Employer did not appear to follow up with the Employee’s absence due to a back injury from 6th June 2019, I recommend that his matter be independently reviewed to determine whether the Employer has contributed to the ongoing absence of the Employee, and if so that the matter of the Employee’s subsequent loss of earnings be addressed, with due regard to any obligations the Employee may have had in relation to returning to work.
Dated: 29/03/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gerry Rooney
Key Words:
Industrial Relations Act