Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Museum Employee

A Museum

Representatives

Kevin O'Connor Private Practitioner

 Mason Hayes & Curran

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-00034477-001

05/02/2020

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

CA-00034477-002

05/02/2020

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

CA-00034477-003

05/02/2020

It is the Worker raised three disputes under the Industrial Relations Act 1969 with one being withdrawn at the hearing. The following is a summary only of the main points detailed by the parties.

The Worker was employed with the Employer since 1 January 2005 and promoted to his current role in June 2017. The Employer emphasised at the outset of its submission that the parties always had an amicable working relationship and he always has been and remains a valued member of the organisation.

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

CA-00034477-001 – Disciplinary Sanctions

The Worker withdrew this dispute at the hearing.

CA-00034477-002 – Bullying and Harassment

The Worker outlined his dispute which arose from the event surround an historical exhibition and nationwide presentations to the public. He claims that that his Employer failed in their duty of care to protect and defend him from bullying and harassment by a third party, a non-worker through a media ad/social media campaign together with open intimidation at public presentations. The Worker states that his professional reputation was damaged.

CA-00034477-003 – Trade Dispute

The Worker outlined his grievance which arose from the event surround an historical exhibition and nationwide presentations to the public. The exhibition was compiled by him as an employee of the Employer who he claims failed to protect the intellectual property of his work by allowing a third party/member of the public unauthorized access in the management process of the programme.

 At the hearing the Worker stated that the only person appropriate to deal with his grievance was the Chair of the Board of Directors. He submitted that his Line Manager and other management were either involved or too closely connected to the review group and therefore, he was not willing to proceed with the procedure.

After filing the grievance with the Chair of the Board in August 2019 there was correspondence from the Head of HR, who the Worker states was not the correct person to receive or address the grievance. On 16 September 2019, the Chair was again contacted by the Worker who sought to progress to Stage 2 of the grievance procedure. On 30 September 2019 there was a written offer to engage a third-party independent investigator to hear the grievance. The Worker disputed the Employer’s ability to engage a third party to hear complaints under the grievance procedure as it was not provided for in the policy. A meeting with the Chair was further requested. A further offer of mediation or an independent investigator was made by the Chair on 13 November 2019.

The Worker sought a number of remedies under each of the headings of dispute.

The background to theWorker’scomplaints arose from concerns of a third-party University Research Fellow as to the similarity of her academic work to that of the exhibition the Worker had presented. Her complaint was made to the Director of the Employer as well as social media and local and national media in or around September 2018. The Worker worked with the Director and amendments were made to the press releases. The third-party University Research Fellow made further complaints in late September 2018. Following further engagement, the Employer decided to postpone of the scheduled events. An independent review to examine the circumstances leading to the third-party University Research Fellow’s complaint was decided upon. The Director of the Employer kept in contact with the Worker and his Manager throughout with the scope of the review sent to the Worker for comment in October 2018 which was presented at the hearing.

The review was into the exhibition and not the Worker personally nor was the Employer’s disciplinary procedure referred to or invoked at any stage of the review. The Worker had the opportunity to object to a panel member of the review and a replacement substituted. It was agreed that the Worker would have a right of appeal to any findings or recommendations of the internal review.

The report was published which included recommendations to progress the exhibition. On 8 November 2018, the Worker emailed this Line Manager and Director stating he rejected the findings and recommendations of the review panel. He was given an opportunity to appeal but no appeal was received.

 A meeting to discuss the email was suggested by the Director with the Worker. During the month of November there were several emails to the Worker to check in with him following the report.

On 23 November 2018, the Director met with the Worker to explain the appeal process, noting both he and his line manager would be consulted with as to who would hear the appeal. This was followed up in writing to the Worker. No appeal was received by the Employer.

On 16 January 2019 there was a further meeting between the parties to discuss the findings and the Worker’s request to cancel the remaining programme series. A draft response to the report was written but not sent to the panel. It is the Employer’s case that it was never intended that the response would be sent to the review panel, it was simply a response for the Worker. The Director accepted that at the time there was no formal policy or procedure in place in relation to collaboration and co-curating. The Employer accepts the lack of clear policies in place and is now putting such policies in place. 

 CA-00034477-001 – Disciplinary Sanctions

This dispute was withdrawn. It is noted that the Employer denies the claim in its entity.

CA-00034477-002 – Bullying and Harassment

It is the Employer’s position that the Worker did not make any complaint under the Employer’s bullying and harassment procedure or dignity at work procedures nor did he make any suggestion of bullying and harassment or mistreatment under their procedures.

It was further submitted that the Worker’s name was not mentioned publicly, and the Employer went to great lengths to ensure his anonymity.

CA-00034477-003 – Trade Dispute

The Employer stated that the Worker does not hold any intellectual property in the works connected with the exhibition and/or programme. It stated it was always the property of the Employer.

On 27 August 2019 the Employer received a grievance under Stage 1 – Formal of the Grievance Procedure from the Worker. This was initially sent to the Chair of the Board of the Employer who forwarded it to the Head of HR who its states was the more appropriate person. There were four elements to the grievance all relating to the internal review and the complaints received from the third-party research fellow. 

The grievance was acknowledged by the Head of HR on 29 August 2019 who advised she was the more appropriate person to deal with the complaint. She requested more specific details around the complaint and offered her support to Worker together with the EAP service.

Between 2 – 17 September 2019 there was a series of email exchanges between the Head of HR and the Worker around the grievance procedure where the Worker expressed dissatisfaction with the line of authority set out in the procedure. On 16 September 2019 the Head of HR sought to travel and meet the Worker face to face to which the Worker responded that a meeting “will not be necessary at this time.”

CA-00034477-001 – Disciplinary Sanctions

This dispute was withdrawn.

CA-00034477-002 – Bullying and Harassment

Having carefully reviewed the Worker’s grievance submitted to the Chair of the Board of the Employer together with the Dignity at Work policy. The policy was updated in 2019, prior to the Worker’s complaint and presents a clear structure on the avenues available for the resolution of issues.

From review of the Employer’s submission and particularly the emails between the Head of HR and the Worker in August and September 2019, every effort was made to facilitate the hearing of his grievance however it was the Worker’s own decision not to pursue it. The Employer and in particular the Chair and the Head of HR can only be commended for the efforts made to facilitate him.

It is clear that the internal procedures set out in the Employer’s policies have not been exhausted by the Worker. In the Labour Court Recommendation of Gregory Geoghegan t/a TAPS v A Worker, INT1014, the Court clearly stated: -

 "The Court is not prepared to insert itself into the procedural process in a situation where the dispute resolution procedures have been bypassed”.

Consequently, I am not prepared to make a recommendation where the Worker has failed to initiate and exhaust the Employer’s internal procedures.

CA-00034477-003 – Trade Dispute

It is difficult to distinguish this former dispute with this one as there appear to be intertwined. Looking at it from purely a grievance perspective as oppose to a complaint under the Dignity at Work Policy, it is clear that the internal grievance procedure has not been invoked. Consequently, as per the former complaint I must follow the Labour Court Recommendation in Gregory Geoghegan t/a TAPS v A Worker, INT1014 and therefore, I am not prepared to make a recommendation where the Worker has failed to initiate and exhaust the Employer’s internal procedures.

CA-00034477-001 – Disciplinary Sanctions

This dispute was withdrawn and therefore, not well founded. 

CA-00034477-002 – Bullying and Harassment

The dispute is not well founded.

CA-00034477-003 – Trade Dispute

The dispute is not well founded.

Industrial Relations - Grievance – Internal Investigation – Failed to invoke internal procedures – not well founded.