Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A PA

A Former Employer

Representatives

John Barry Management Support Services (Ireland) Ltd

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-00038312-005

23/06/2020

The worker submitted this dispute under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969  on the 23rd of June 2020.

This claim involves an allegation in respect of bullying and harassment procedures.   The worker was employed as a PA whose work centred around organising an international conference which took place at the end of November annually.    The worker submit that she received an annual bonus of €5000.    The worker stated that this bonus of €5,000 had always been paid to her after the conference and stated that it had been paid to her in December 2017 and December 2018 after the conference but was not paid in 2019.  The issue of the non-payment of the bonus is the subject of a separate claim under the Payment of Wages Act.  The subject matter of this claim relates to an alleged incident during discussions about the non-payment of the bonus.

The worker states that this bonus was paid in recognition of a job well done when the conference had been a success and she stated that the conference in 2019 had been an even bigger success than the previous two years.  The evidence of such success is reflected in the increased number of delegates who attended the conference and also in the increase in the employers profit margin attributed to the conference.   The worker stated that the November 2019 conference was the most successful with the highest number of delegates and highest profit margin.  The employer did not dispute this.

The employer submits that the bonus is discretionary and stated that it is awarded for exceptional performance.   The employer stated that the worker was paid a bonus of €2,000 on 23rd of December 2019 and as justification for not paying the remaining €3,000 alleged that they had been told by a third party that the worker had been overheard colluding to steal the conference business from them. The employers submit that they received this information from a third party.     This allegation of collusion was not raised with the worker until the 23rd of December 2019 when she had again asked for her bonus and the reason why it was not paid.

On 23 December 2019 the worker states that she and Ms. P the transferee went to the employers main office where the transferors Mr. and Mrs. H were waiting for them.   Mr. H at this meeting passed the worker a cheque for €2,000 which she states he had previously referred to as an ‘appreciation of (her) contribution overall’ .  When the worker asked about her annual bonus which was usually paid to her following work done by her in organising the annual international conference, Mr. H informed her that it was not going to be paid this year because of a number of issues before and during the conference which he failed to specify.

 The worker asked Mr. H to clarify the issues he referred to that allegedly occurred before and during the conference and which resulted in the non-payment of her bonus.  Mr. H replied, asking if she really wanted to get into it and the worker confirmed that she did.    The worker states that Mr. H  then slammed his hand down on the desk and started saying that the worker had almost cost them the sale of their business as he had heard that she  had been colluding with clients at the conference to steal their business from under them and could not be trusted.    The employers Mr. and Mrs H completely dispute this version of events and state that M did not slam the table or raise his voice.

The worker replied that this was not true to which Mr. H replied that 'she' heard you referring to his wife  who said she had overheard the worker colluding with others at the conference. 

Mr. H stated that he had heard that the worker had been offered a salary of €90,000 by someone else to stay on her role.  The worker denies that such offer was made.

The worker responded with 'I don't need to listen to this shit anymore' and walked out of the door of the office.   The business had been signed over to the transferee earlier that day.

In this regard the worker has made reference to an alleged incident on 23rd December 2019, in which she states, “the ferocity of the attack as witnessed by the Transferee was a violation by the Transferor of its own bullying and harassment policy which applies to employers equally”.

The employers completely disagree with the workers representation of the events which took place on 23rd December 2019, and maintain that, at no time did, either Mr. or Mrs. H conduct themselves in this manner.  With regard to the allegation of “bullying”, the employer states that it is recognised in the codes of practice that it has to be repeated.    The employer states that worker has referred to a single incident of alleged bullying which, in such circumstances, would mean that it would not fall within the definition of bullying as defined under the bullying and harassment procedures.   . However, in saying that, the employer accepts that at all times that everybody should be treated with dignity and respect and emphatically disagree with the account of the conversations which took place on the day in question.

The employer advised the hearing that they had not paid the worker her €5000 annual bonus as they had heard that she had had been colluding with people at the conference to steal the business out from under them.    The employer Mr. H told the hearing that he and his wife had at the time told the worker that it was his wife A who had overheard this at the conference dinner, but he advised the hearing that he had in fact been told this by Ms. P the person who would later go on to take over the business and became the workers new employer.

The employer Mr. H at the hearing stated that he had been told the story about the worker colluding with clients by Ms. P but when he had confronted the worker about it his wife had stepped in and said it was, she who had heard the conversation and told him.   Mr. and Mrs H both stated that they had at the time  attributed this story to Mrs. H as they did not want to cause a problem between the worker and Ms. P when she was to become the new owner of the business and the future employer of the worker.  In addition, Mr. H stated that he was relieved that Ms.  Ha agreed to continue to take on the complainant in the circumstances and given what she alleged she had heard which involved the complainant.

The employer states that this discussion took place on the 23rd of December the day of the transfer and that a complaint or allegation of bullying in relation to this incident was never raised with them.  Furthermore Mr. H added that the new employer (the transferee) was employing the worker on the same Terms and Conditions which had transferred so too had the obligation to address any allegations raised by the worker.

This claim involves an allegation in respect of bullying and harassment procedures.  It is clear from the accounts given by the worker and the employer that the employer had sought to  avoid paying the worker her annual bonus for 2019 and initially advised her  that the incoming new business owner Ms. P would pay her the bonus for work she had carried out in relation to the 2019 conference for which they the employer was responsible had reaped the benefits.   In addition, the employer  later advised the worker that she was not paid the bonus due to their belief that she had been colluding with others at the conference to steal the conference business, this allegation  was never investigated or put to the worker.

The worker advised the hearing that she had on the 23rd of December again raised the matter of the non-payment of her annual bonus with  Mr. H and that he had become very angry asking if she really wanted to get into this.   He told her that she had nearly cost them the business and stated that he had heard that she had had been colluding with people at the conference to steal the business out from under them.    The worker stated that she advised Mr. H that this was not true and that he had told her that his wife Mrs. H had overheard her at the dinner.   It later emerged at the hearing that Mr. H had not heard this from his wife but stated that they had heard it from Ms. P the person who would later go on to take over the business and became the workers new employer.

The worker advised the hearing that the first she heard of this allegation was on the 23rd of December,  she said she was shocked and taken aback by this allegation and was so upset that she walked out of the office and said, 'I don't need to listen to this shit anymore' and walked out of the door of the office. 

The employer Mr. H at the hearing stated that he had been told the story about the worker colluding with clients by Ms. P but when he had confronted the worker about it his wife had stepped in and said it was, she who had heard the conversation and told him.   Mr. and Mrs H both stated that they had attributed this story Mrs. H as they did not want to cause a problem between the worker and Ms. P when she was to become the new owner of the business and employer of the worker.

When asked at the hearing whether she had raised a complaint with the employer under the bullying and harassment policy the worker replied that the incident had happened on the last day on which the transfer took place and so she had not been in a position to raise it with the employer.   The non-payment of the annual bonus has been dealt with in a separate claim.   

The worker in this claim is seeking an apology in writing from the employer stating that there was no betrayal the worker added that the allegation of collusion and betrayal was unfounded.  The employer states that it was only conveying information it had received from a third party at the time and that they were upset after being told that the worker had been overheard colluding with others to steal the business, but the employer concedes that the matter was not investigated or raised with the complainant during her employment with them.    The worker when asked confirmed that this incident was not raised with the employer under its policy.

Having regard to all of the information adduced I do not recommend in favour of the complainant in respect of this matter.

I do not recommend in favour of the worker.