Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Financial Accountant

A Catering Business

Representatives

  Appeared in Person

Gerard Murphy & Co Chartered Certified Accountant’s (Liquidator)

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-00038491-001

02/07/2020

The Worker in this case is a Financial Controller who raised a Trade Dispute with the Workplace Relations Commission on 2 July 2020.

He raised the incidence of Inter personal Conflict which negatively impacted his working conditions prior to Liquidation in June 2020.

The Worker presented his own case and was requested to forward whatever contracts of employment he had in his possession. I subsequently received a copy of a contract for Financial Controller dated January 2017 . That was my sole request to the worker .

The Employer, in Liquidation was represented by the Liquidator, who presented details of the Liquidation. He also outlined some details on the Business.

The Worker, an Accountant, outlined that he had three roles at the Business over the course of his tenure from 2 January 2017 to 5 June 2020. His employment ended through Redundancy in July 2020.

The Workers first role was at Assistant Financial Controller on 20 hours per week at the Catering Supply Company. He then filled the role of Financial Controller in the Company, which comprised 22 employees, on the sudden departure of the post holder.

He told the hearing that he inherited a negative attitude within the company. His role was largely fire fighting and things deteriorated after the departure of the Co -Founder of the company.

He found that weekly meetings, attended by staff exhibited a focus on a worsening financial situation. He experienced personal, hostile verbal attacks from the owner of the family run business which carried into the Warehouse setting. He felt stressed and strained by these confrontations which were unwarranted. He was disturbed by the turbulent approach of the owner of the business. This was further demonstrated by his throwing a cup of tea in the direction of the workers work bench. The worker submitted that he worked up to 50 hours a week at the Business.

There was a high staff turnover during his tenure, when up to 12 people left.

The Worker sought to address his humiliation directly with the owner and via family members associated with the business. The owner apologised in 2019, but it was short-lived and the hostile and verbal attacks persisted.

The Worker led out on the installation of a new IT system, Contracts for staff in his 3rd year of employment. He had been assured of a €2,500 bonus on completion, which was never paid.

He took on the role of General Manager, but the business closed in March 2020. Re-opened for a week in June, before entering Voluntary Liquidation in July 2020.

The Worker received payment for some annual leave and notice owed.

The Worker told the hearing that this was the first time he had experienced bullying and Harassment in the workplace and it had affected him greatly. He was embarrassed to have been spoken to in the manner the Owner addressed him in and his confidence eroded.

The Worker also reflected that perhaps he ought to have left the Business sooner but had personal commitments to honour, which influenced his reluctant continuance.

The worker stated that “I make this complaint in the hope that Mr X will be made aware that this type of behaviour will be no longer tolerated in a modern-day workplace environment.”

He has spent a considerable period seeking to re-launch his career, but this had proved difficult to date.

The Liquidator outlined the historical background to the operation of the Company, which regrettably had acquired a high level of external debt. This was accompanied by a fragmentation in leadership when a Partner left the Business in 2018 /2019.

The Liquidator acknowledged and commended the work done by the worker on the evolution of the IT system but outlined that the potential for on line sales had not been developed by him.

The Liquidator was aware of a climate of aggression at the Business but was not party to or a direct witness to any of the interpersonal conflict experienced by the Worker in the case.  There were no issues reported with the Workers work.

The Liquidator submitted that Re-instatement was not an option for the Worker. Company assets had been bought and several staffs rehired.

I have been asked to investigate a Trade Dispute in accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

I appreciated the preparation and attendance of both parties at hearing. I would have liked to meet with the Owner of the Business to gain a better understanding of both party’s experiences at work.

Firstly, I am not charged with investigating a complaint of bullying and harassment. I have explored the contractual relationship, policies, procedures and any records which survived the employment. On foot of this, I asked the Worker to submit copies of the contract which prevailed during any of the three roles he held with the company, now in liquidation. I have not received a response to this request.

I found the Worker in this case to be quite forthright in his recollection of the events he reported. I appreciate that these events have caused a real trauma for him. His version of events was not contested.

He is left with a sense of futility regarding his hard work over a 3.5-year period and carries a strong sense of purpose that he is speaking now to deter a recurrence of the hostility he experienced when his former employer relaunches in Business.

I noted that the contract provided for a very detailed grievance procedure .

I introduced the topic of the newly published code of practice on Bullying and Harassment, January 2021 to the parties at hearing. I mentioned that it serves as a framework for any person in difficulty at work and ought to be explored and applied going forward.

Redundancy and indeed Liquidations are frequently opportunities for parties to reflect on their past work experience and can be catalysts for how they wish to proceed in the future.

For my part, I found in the Worker, someone who worked with a strong sense of purpose and commitment over 3.5 years, where he sought to formalise employment relationships through contracts and policies and procedures. He did, however appear to get lost in the storm and stress of a turbulent company, which was clearly experiencing trading difficulties. I accept that he was targeted publicly at meetings and this was a continuous and unwelcome practice.

Respect, trust and confidence go to the root of all employment relationships. When fault lines develop in any of these three, remedial action is required to save the employment relationship and to avoid a festering toxicity as described in the Workers outline, which was not contested.

In this case, the informal attempts at conflict resolution were engaged in earnest but dogged by short term outcomes and recidivism followed.

This is a classic case where early representation followed by consensual mediation could have offered a mutually acceptable resolution to what I accept was a challenging employment. I accept that the worker did all in his power to stand up for himself in pursuance of dignity, but he was clearly overtaken by the Management style he met. He needed “back up “.

I am aware that in Industrial Relations claims , it is essential to have activated and exhausted the grievance procedure prior to referral to a third party . I accept that parties mentioned in this case were the most senior figures in the business and I accept that the worker brought his dissatisfaction to the employers  and his families attention.

Any incidence of violence at work should result in an immediate referral to the Gardai.

I was struck by the Workers resilience in the case and I am hopeful that he can now secure new work in a more supportive work environment in the very near future.

For now, I have found merit in his dispute for the following reasons.

1 There were no Policies and Procedures on the Management of Bullying in the Workplace.

2 This appears to have contributed to a reported culture of negativity, high staff turnover and a sense of futility for the Worker when all the power seemed to be in the hands of one person.

3 Incentivised Work was not recognised by bonus payment.

4 Obstacles were placed in the way of accessing rest time which intensified the distress associated with the Business.

5 The Worker suffered trauma at work which flies in the face of the employer’s duty of care to employees.

I have found that the Worker probably did over invest his time in the company. He ought to have responded to the stark signs of financial and psychological trauma much earlier to protect himself.

I urge both parties to take some time to read and consider the new Health and Safety Authority/ Workplace Relations Commission Code of Practice on Bullying.

It recommends that:

“Robust preventive approaches and effective clear transparent procedures are in place which are used effectively “

This is the key to managing a safe workplace for all.

Section 6.3 demonstrates the roles of external bodies. Nobody should be left alone in addressing perceived bullying behaviour in real times to avoid what occurred in this case.

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

I recommend that both parties should reflect on the employment relationship presented here.

 I recommend that the Employer adopts and utilises the Code of Practice in its entirety in any future venture to employ workers. It is imperative that he distinguishes between legitimate management authority and the complexities of what can be reasonably perceived as a Bullying and thus unwelcome approach. The setting for hosting respectful engagements may well be a good first step. I emphasise the Code of Practice direction on having a Safety Statement reflective of risks around bullying at work.  

I recommend that the Worker now accepts closure on his work-related trauma. It must be enough that he undertook whatever conflict resolution mechanisms were open to him at that time, albeit that they were unsuccessful. He did his best.

I recommend that the Employer pays the Worker €4,500 in compensation in respect of

1 Failure to hold or follow any Policies or Procedures in the management of conflict at work and the resultant unresolved escalation of conflict.

2 Failure to make good on the Bonus Payment on completion of the IT system.

3 Failure to permit the Worker adequate rest time.

Given that a lump sum payment for Redundancy, Notice and annual leave payments have  been substantially addressed and  paid in this case, the sum of €4,500 should be in full and final settlement of all claims against this Employer.

Inter personal Conflict, unpaid bonus, void in operational policies.