Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

An Employer

Representatives

 Hayes solicitors

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-00041570-001

16/12/2020

The following is a brief summary of the Worker’s position.

The Worker commenced work with the Employer on 22 June 2010 and his employment ended on 27 November 2020. He was involved in maintenance. He said that after 22 weeks working from home, he returned to the workplace but decided to resign within one month of that return date because of the situation there.

He claims that he was subjected to several incidents concerning bullying, abuse and public humiliation during his ten year’s employment with the Employer.

He said that there was an internal dispute procedure, mediation, investigations and an appeal. But to no avail. He said that in February and March 2020 he informed his employer that he rejected all the findings in the internal proceedings and requested that the issues be escalated to the next stage of the internal procedures. He claims that he requested that the dispute be taken to the next stage, however, he did not receive a response to this request nor is he aware if the issues were escalated.

The complaints which were the subject of the internal dispute procedure were to do with a number of incidents dating from October 2015 and 16 April 2019, and he was not satisfied with how they were dealt with.

Prior to the hearing the Worker presented a document entitled “Additional events concerning attitude & behaviour”, where he set out events that occurred after his return to work, all dated from 12 November 2020 to 16 December 2020, which he claims demonstrate disrespect and ignorance from member(s) of staff towards him.

The Worker does not accept that the Employer handled the matter correctly.

The following is a summary of the Employer’s position.

The Worker first made a complaint to the CEO, against Mr. A on 22 May 2019. He was provided with a copy of its Anti Bullying Policy and as per the policy, an internal mediation session on 20 June 2019 was held to help resolve the issues. Possible solutions were discussed at this mediation including, a. Line management change. b. Counselling support, and c. seeing the company doctor.

The Employer said it acted reasonably, timely and attempted to reach workable solutions. However, the Worker decided to pursue a complaint to the WRC before the internal procedure had been exhausted. To resolve matters the Employer agreed to change the Worker’s line manager to Ms. B. The Worker accepted an offer of change in line management, was offered counselling, and an appointment with the company doctor. The Doctor’s report dated the 9 September 2019 stated that the Worker, “[w]hile he is experiencing stress, I do not think that stress has rendered him unfit for work”. The doctor did not think it necessary to see the Worker again on any stress-related issues.

The CEO learned he had been discussing open investigation matters with others within the organisation, which was a breach of confidentiality, that was addresses with him. The Worker was unhappy with that and the outcomes generally.

A formal Independent Investigation process began with the Worker where he met with an investigator, from a sister organisation, on 19 July 2019.  Following an investigation into the Worker’s complaint against his previous line manager Mr. A, when the Worker received the decision in September 2019 and emailed the investigator that “this is a load of b******t” and he appealed the decision on 5 December 2019.

The CEO met the Worker on 18 December 2019 to address the Worker’s concerns and subsequently to revert him back to his old-line manager Mr. A, given as he had now raised a grievance against his new line manager Ms. B. The CEO continued to keep in contact with him.  The appeal was completed by a different senior person and the decision was delivered on 14 February 2020 in line with its policy without any delay. The findings were not in favour of the Worker.  The Employer maintained that the Worker rejected the Appeal findings, and not the process. However, the CEO informed him that there were no further steps in the procedure.

The Employer understood that this matter had ended given that the Worker had agreed to revert to Mr A as line manager and there was nothing more outstanding.

With regard to the complaint against Ms. B, the Employer said it was agreed by all parties that this complaint would be dealt with “in-house”, via a mediation. The CEO, Ms. B and the Worker met and went through the mediation process on 24 February 2020 and concluded the process on 9 March 2020. The Worker expressed his disappointment that allegations were not addressed in his email of 28 February 2020 and expanded upon his complaints regarding same in his email of 20 April 2020. The Employer said in that email, he conflated the issues dealt with in the report regarding Mr. A and the complaint made regarding Ms. B, regardless of the latter issues having been mediated upon shortly before. It said that this was explained to the Worker by the CEO on 27 April 2020, in which it was stated that the issues raised were covered in the mediation process. The Worker clarified that the issue regarding Ms. B was “resolved” and that he was referring to the Mr. A complaint.

The Employer said the mediation process culminated in an agreement which the Worker said “resolved” matters with Ms. B. This was subsequently communicated in writing by the Worker.

The Worker sent his notice of retirement on 8 September 2020, stating he was: “looking forward to my impending retirement but wanted to take this opportunity to thank you for all of the opportunities that I have experienced working for the company. I have worked in the company for over 10 years and during that time it was a genuinely enjoyable experience…. thank you for giving me the opportunity to work in such a friendly, dynamic and challenging work environment”.

This was acknowledged by Mr. A on 16 October 2020, with the Worker’s employment coming to an end on 27 November – inclusive of annual leave from 12 November to 27 November 2020. The Employer said it wished the Worker well in his retirement and sent a retirement gift as it would for all staff.

The Employer said that the Worker did not take his dispute to the WRC until 16 December 2020, nearly one year after the internal process concluded regarding his complaint against Mr. A, and following the Worker’s resignation from the organisation.

As to the new issues raised by the Worker on just prior to the hearing, the Employer said that none of these issues were raised during the Worker’s employment and therefore, it was impossible for it to address these per its internal procedures.

Nevertheless, it said the Worker appears to conflate the Grievance Policy and Anti-Bullying Policy in the present complaint, as there is no provision in the latter to refer complaints to an external body such as the WRC, if not satisfied internally. Therefore, it cannot be said that the dispute was not “taken to the next stage”.

It said that it has always treated the Worker with respect and patience and responded to the many issues raised by the Worker since May 2019. The responses have always has been timely, thorough and in accordance with the internal procedures.

At the outset, I note for the record, that the hearing of this case was held by remote means. There were some technical issues at the start of the hearing, and I waited until these matters passed and checked with the parties to ensure they were able to process with the hearing. Intermittently there were minor issues throughout the hearing, but nothing so substantial that rendered any difficulty in my mind to raise concerns. At the end of the hearing, I ask both parties, in turn, if they were satisfied that they were able to present their respective positions before I brought the hearing to a close and both confirmed they were. The only matter that was raised, by the Worker, was whether I was going to deal with the new events set out in the “Additional events concerning attitude & behaviour” that had been furnished to the Workplace Relations Commission just prior to the hearing, in my final Recommendation.

After the hearing, I received an email from the Worker outlining technical problems and he indicated that he may have misheard certain things and he provided me with additional information in reaction to items addressed at the hearing and contact details of people mentioned in the context of the hearing. All of which was unsolicited.

I noted the Worker’s concern, and I gave both parties an additional opportunity to provide additional submissions and commentary to ensure the full picture was presented to me. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the parties have had ample opportunity to present their respective cases. I am satisfied to be in a position to consider all the oral and written submissions and that I can now address the substantive matter.

I have taken note of the fractious relationship the Worker appeared to have had during his time with his Employer. I note the number of complaints, with resulted in mediation, investigations and decisions throughout the latter stages of his employment. I can only assume that this was a difficult period to navigate for all concerned. I note the Worker left his employment at the end of November but had been on annual leave from 12 November. Many of the issues he raised pre-hearing of this case related to the behaviours and conduct of persons when his employment was over. He appears to have expected a better relationship from those he previously worked with, on his return to his workplace post retirement, and appears to be aggrieved by that.

It is clear that relationships with ex-colleagues at this point in time, are of a private nature and are no longer a professional relationship or the responsibility of the Employer.

I note that the individual complaints raised by the Worker against Mr. A and Ms. B were dealt with by way of the Employer’s Policies and although they did not result in favour of the Worker, they were conducted fairly and transparently. I am satisfied the process in both cases have run their course.

I note the final interactions between the Worker and his Employer just prior to his retirement. The final letter notifying the Worker’s date of retirement indicates a positive parting of ways and not one that suggests that there were matters still outstanding, not addressed and where further interaction was required to bring to a conclusion.

I am satisfied that the complaints previously lodged by the Workers have been fully dealt with as per its Policies and have fully concluded.

The matters that seemed to provoke the Worker to lodge a dispute under the Industrial Relations Acts with the WRC subsequently derive from the interaction with ex colleagues, after his employment ended, which brings back into sight historical issues the Worker had with certain individuals during his employment.

All these were dealt with. I am satisfied that the Employer has no responsibility for an employment relationship between the parties any longer.

I recommend that since the Parties employment relationship has now ended and at which point the relationship ended amicably, the Worker accepts that the Employer no longer owes him the same level of responsibility than when he was employed there, and therefore there is has no further case for it to answer.

Industrial Relations Acts – dispute – employment relationship ended