Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Project Worker

Homeless Charity

Representatives

Ciara Galvin SIPTU

Rory Treanor, B.L. of Peninsula

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-00043446-001

07/04/2021

This dispute arises from how the respondent dealt with a grievance made against the worker and a counter-grievance made by the worker.

In March 2019 the worker took part in a mediation process in the workplace and she says she did not why it was set up and there was no discernible outcome. It was only in November 2019 when she was informed that a colleague had made a bullying complaint against her. At a formal grievance hearing on 12 December 2019 the worker tried to submit a counter-grievance but was not allowed to and was told to lodge it separately. The worker went on sick leave on 22 January 2020 because of work related stress. Despite issues being raised by the worker’s representative the outcome of the investigation was issued on 6 March 2020, which recommended the worker be transferred.

The counter-grievance was submitted on 19 March 2020, but the grievance meeting did not take place until 16 September 2020. Issues were raised during the investigation about its conduct, but these were not addressed. The outcome of the worker’s grievance was issued on 4 December 2020. The worked appealed the outcome. The appeal was heard on 3 February 2021 and the outcome issued on 23 February 2021. It did not uphold the worker’s appeal and further recommended she be transferred.

On 4 March 2021 the worker was told the outcome of the first grievance would be “addressed and managed through supervision as opposed to a formal HR process” and that transfer “remains a very valid recommendation”. At a subsequent meeting it was confirmed the worker would not be considered for an immediate transfer, but she would be considered for a transfer later in the year.

The worker says the grievances took too long to be investigated and were flawed in their processes. Furthermore, she feels her name has not been cleared and a finding of bullying remains on her file. Also, she still has the threat of transfer hanging over her. The worker requests these two issues be rectified and asks that compensation be awarded for the employer’s failings.

The employer confirms they received a complaint in relation to the worker’s conduct in October 2019 and an investigation was carried out. The worker was absent from 22 January to 18 March 2020 due to ill health. The outcome of the investigation was issued on 6 March 2020. On 6 March 2020 the worker lodged a complaint against the person who had made a complaint against her. Following a series of delays the worker attended an investigation meeting in relation to her grievance on 16 September 2020 and this was followed with witness meetings. The outcome was issued on 4 December 2020. The employer recommended that the worker and the other person involved should not work together and steps taken to deal with the substantiated matters in a private and confidential manner. The worker appealed the outcome and following a meeting on 3 February 2021 she was issued with the outcome on 23 February 2021. The original outcome was upheld in full. Discussions regarding the worker’s transfer took place in March 2021 and it was agreed she would not be transferred in the present round.

Clearly, there was difficulty between the worker and the person involved in the grievance and counter-grievance. This led to an elongated attempt at an informal resolution through what seems to have been a general look at working relationships in their workplace. Indeed, it was so general that the worker was unaware of the real focus of the mediation. It was seven months after this commenced that the other person lodged a formal grievance and a very lengthy period ensued with investigations into the original complaint and the worker’s counter- complaint; from October 2019 until February 2021, some sixteen months. Having listened to both sides I conclude they were both responsible for delays, which did have an effect on the worker and, I’m sure other people involved.

It is not appropriate for me to look in detail at the investigations and reconsider their recommendations. I am making recommendations based on what I have heard from both parties and what I consider will help ensure such lengthy investigations do not happen again and to improve working relations. I note the person who made the complaint against the worker has voluntarily moved to a different location. If it comes about that the employer is considering putting the two in the same location then a short, focussed mediation should be instigated to ensure they can work together, before they are placed in the same workplace.

The worker requested that I recommend payment of compensation for the time delays and because her rights were breached, as she was never given the opportunity to clear her name. As I have set out above the initial informal process was allowed to drag on and the investigations were lengthened by delays on both sides. Also, the worker tried to appeal the outcome of the initial investigation and she was informed of the outcome of her appeal in her own grievance, a year after she was informed of the outcome. If she was dissatisfied with the outcome the appeal should have been lodged in a timely manner in accordance with the respondent’s procedures. 

Whilst endorsing the aims of informal methods to address and resolve interpersonal issues, I have to say it is extremely poor practice that what was presented as mediation in March 2019 apparently went on for more than six months, with no apparent aims and no outcome. I recommend, in the strongest possible terms, the employer should always make sure all people involved know the reason for any such intervention and that it should not be allowed to go beyond one month before the person who raised the grievance is appraised of progress and given the opportunity to submit a formal grievance.

At the hearing the employer confirmed there is no finding of bullying on the worker’s file. Also, the employer confirmed the worker is not currently being considered for a transfer. There is an annual review of transfers undertaken at the end of each year and I recommend the worker is not included in the review at the end of 2021.

I recommend the employer, in future, combine grievances and counter-grievances, that are made within a short time of each other, and hold one investigation into all claims. This does lead to a wider investigation, but it means all matters get fully aired at the same time. It is more efficient and a better use of time than have one investigation follows another.

I cannot see there was anything fundamentally wrong in the investigations of the claim and counter-claim, apart from the time involved, as I have set out above. Regardless of the outcome of the investigations it is negligent of the employer to allow matters to drag on for so long. This caused the worker a lot of stress and led to her being on work related stress for over two months. In all the circumstances I recommend the employer pay the worker compensation of €1,500 for the stress arising from the delays in dealing with the grievances raised in accordance with their procedures.