| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Worker | A Motor Vehicle Company |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Industrial Relations Issues | CA-00044532-002 | 9th June 2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 16.05.2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer O Shea
Procedure:
In accordance Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969] following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Background:
The claimant lodged a complaint of constructive dismissal under the Unfair Dismissals Acts. In her complaint form she submitted as follows under the Section of the Complaint form for complaints under the Industrial Relations Acts- “Bullying & Harassment Procedures”. At the commencement of the hearing, the claimant expressed reservations about proceeding without legal representation. She was asked if she wished to apply for an adjournment and after due consideration expressed the wish to proceed without legal representation.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The claimant was unable to articulate any complaint under the Industrial Relations Acts at the hearing. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent submitted as follows in relation to the complaint under the Industrial Relations Acts. It is submitted that the conduct complained of in this case (which is not admitted) would not constitute bullying in any event, particularly if one considers how the threshold for bullying/harassment claims has been reconfigured by the Supreme Court in the recent case of Ruffley v The Board of Management of Saint Anne’s School [2017] IESC 33. Therein, at paragraph 66 of O’Donnell J’s judgment, he sought to 1 Cosgrave v Kavanagh Meat Products UD6/1988 2 Conway v Ulster Bank Ltd UD474/198 identify the type of behaviour that might constitute bullying and thereby undermines an individual’s dignity at work and stated: - “…it seems to me that the requirement of conduct undermining dignity at work is a separate, distinct and important component of the definition of bullying which identifies the interests sought to be protected by the law, and just as importantly limits the claims which may be made to those which can be described as outrageous, unacceptable and exceeding all bounds tolerated by decent society.” O’Donnell J. further stated the test for bullying was: - “a single definition and a single test: was the defendant guilty of repeated inappropriate behaviour against the plaintiff which could reasonably be regarded as undermining the individual’s right to dignity at work.” |
Findings and Conclusions:
Following the hearing the claimant was requested to clarify if she was withdrawing the complaint under the Industrial Relations Acts. She replied to the effect that she did not wish to withdraw the complaint and documented a series of complaints – some were already articulated and dealt with in her complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Acts – the remainder were fresh complaints in respect to which the respondent had not been put on notice. In the circumstances, I cannot uphold fresh complaints which were submitted post the hearing and consequently recommend against the claimant. |
Recommendation
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.]
I recommend against the complainant. |
Dated: 16-08-22
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:
Key Words:
|