Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Shop Assistant

A Shop

Representatives

  Complainant

Ibec

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-00040546-001

22/10/2020

The employee had her weekly hours reduced by the company and also alleges bullying by her supervisor.  She lodged a grievance and an appeal of the outcome to that grievance and is not satisfied with the company’s decision.

The employee has been employed by the respondent company for seven years. In November 2019, the store employed a new store manager and, after a number of weeks, the store manager began to cut the employee’s hours. The employee asserts that she had a contract of employment for 20 hours per week but the company did not have a copy of this. Over a period of weeks there was a number of issues with the store manager including the employee’s personal life being discussed in a public setting in the workplace. The employee lodged a grievance and a hearing was conducted by the Area Manager. The employee believes her voice was not heard and the company failed to recognise that she was being bullied.   

Following receipt of complaints under the company’s Grievance Procedure the company held a hearing on 18th February 2020 conducted by the Area Manager (Mr A).  Minutes of the meeting were signed by all present including the complainant.  The outcome of the hearing was communicated by Mr A to the complainant on 8th June 2020.  The conclusions were as follows;

Shortfall and outstanding pay

Having looked into this and having liaised with the payroll Supervisor I believe this issue is now resolved.

Change in hours

Having investigated this point, I could find no evidence via our Kronos, HR or payroll records that confirms you were specifically placed on set hours and days every week. However, after having considered your length of service with the Company, I decided that you should be given the 20-hour contract on the agreed set days. This is reflected in the updated contacted you received from me dated the 03.03.2020 and signed by yourself in agreement on the 04.03.2020.

Bullying by (Supervisor)

Having thoroughly investigated the points highlighted to me during our meeting, I can find no evidence that would support this. You highlighted that the main issue was concerning the incident on the stairs regarding a risk assessment and while you stated during the meeting that you were happy to do a risk assessment both (the Supervisor) and another manager stated you had refused to do this. You also, raised issues of rosters being changed, which I do agree with. However, having spoken to (the Supervisor) I believe this was down to her unawareness of the differences in legislation between Scotland and ROI. (The Supervisor) openly admitted she did not realise at the time that she couldn’t change the roster mid-week but had done this to bring the store in line with the labour market. Having discussed this, she now realised that Irish employment law is different and has been approaching myself and ER for advice and is taking part in a training exercise next week to benefit her. (The Supervisor) also highlighted that you were a good worker and that she felt there were no issues between you.

Because of these findings, I propose to take the following action:

- Mediation between yourself and (the Supervisor) to discuss any issues, which will be arranged on your return to work.

An appeal of the outcome was submitted by the complainant on the basis that;

Firstly, she alleged she was not offered the opportunity to have a work colleague or union official attend the hearing;

Secondly, that she disputed the finding that there was no evidence supporting her claims and that her main concern was her contract and her hours being constantly cut;

Thirdly, her concern at not feeling safe in her workplace.

The Appeal was held on 29th August 2020 and conducted by a different Area Manager (Mr B).  The outcome was communicated to the complainant on 15th October 2020 as follows;

Change in Hours.

The store manager could not find a 20-hour contract that you claimed that you had, only your original 8-hour contract was in your file in store and with also held with HR.

Further investigation was actioned to determine the average weekly hours that you had worked over several months which concluded that you had worked an average of 16 hours per week during the time analysed. After receiving confirmation of this information, ( Mr A) gave you a 20-hour contract as part of his outcome. This is resolved and should not have been in the appeal. I therefore do not uphold this point of your appeal.

Constant Bullying by the store manager since November 2019.

Upon further investigation, I was unable to find any additional or new evidence to support this claim. I therefore do not uphold this point of your appeal.

Denied representation during grievance meeting.

I investigated this point and can confirm that after interviewing the note taker, the chairperson, and the store manager, they all confirm that your representative had not been made aware of the situation she was asked to join. Once she realised the purpose of the meeting she did not want to be involved and left before the meeting started. Your chosen representative had previously supplied a statement against you in a separate incident and felt this would be a conflict of interest. You were not present when your representative left the room so believe that you assumed a reason for her departure, rather than question why she left. The chairperson confirmed that he offered you the choice of alternative representation and that he would not have proceeded with the meeting without your consent. I therefore do not uphold this point of your appeal.

I confirm your appeal has been unsuccessful. For the avoidance of any doubt, be advised that I find your grievance to be unfounded and therefore the original decision taken by (Mr A), Area Manager on behalf of the Company is to be upheld.

It is the company’s position that all of the grievances were fully investigated in accordance with proper procedure.

From time to time instances may arise in any employment which result in an employee feeling aggrieved.  These may relate to decisions taken by management which impact on the employee’s working conditions or they may also relate to interpersonal problems such as bullying.  It is important therefore that the employer has acceptable procedures in place in order to deal with such instances, and to protect the rights of all parties involved.  I have reviewed the procedures used by the employer in this case and am satisfied that these procedures were appropriate.  I am also of the opinion, based on the evidence given, that the two Area Managers who heard both the original complaint and the appeal were competent to do so.  In both the original hearing and the appeal all of the issues raised by the employee were comprehensively addressed.  In particular, I note that the solution proposed to and accepted by, the employee regarding her weekly hours being stabilised at 20.  In relation to the complaints of bullying it is not appropriate for me to second guess the outcome of the investigations carried out by both Area Managers provided that the procedures used were satisfactory and there was no obvious relevant oversights. I am satisfied that both Area Managers dealt with the matters before them in a competent and professional manner.  I therefore conclude that the complaint is not well founded.

The complaint is not well-founded.

Industrial relations, bullying, investigation, application of grievance procedures