Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An employee

An employer

Representatives

Yvonne O Callaghan SIPTU Trade Union

Eoin Haverty IBEC

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-00042150-002

26/01/2021

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00042154-002

26/01/2021

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The worker was employed initially as a specialist and was offered the position as co-ordinator at a later stage.

It was agreed at the outset that the second complaint was a duplicate and could be disregarded.

The employee submitted that when he took up the position of coordinator, he was not given any formal training or shadowing but rather a number of one to one 30-minute meetings.

The employee submitted that he sought the assistance of the Board Chair in dealing with a number of difficulties that arose and was informed that the Chair would get back to him.  The Chair never got back to him.

The employee submitted that he engaged with the HR section for assistance from May 2019 in relation to a number of employees.  The Chair had a meeting with these individuals without the employee being made aware.  Ultimately this resulted in the employee being invited to a mediation process.  He was informed that this process was unsuccessful and was asked whether he wished to proceed to an investigation process.

In October 2019, the employee submitted a complaint that he was being bullied and a month later he was invited to a disciplinary meeting to address his ‘performance concerns’.  The employee submitted that at this point he had not received any performance appraisals.

The employee submitted that his admissions of inexperience resulted in him being humiliated and degraded in the manner in which the employer sought to investigate claims against the employee.

The employee submitted that his probation period was cut short, and he was demoted from the coordinators position back to the position of job coach.

The employee submitted that in June of 2020 he sought a reference for another position and in July 2020 he resigned to take up a position with another employer.

The employee submitted that the employer did not deal with his period of probation in a proper manner, it did not support him as an employee or as a supervisor and that it did not follow any coherent set of HR processes.

The employee suggested that the employer should introduce a proper probation policy, including early intervention meetings every three months, and that the employer should have a proper disciplinary policy including investigative structures.

The employer submitted that it had ceased trading recently and was in the process of undergoing liquidation.

The employer submitted that it had acted in a proper manner at all times and that when complaints had arisen against the complainant, it tried to sort them out by way of mediation.

The employer submitted that when the employee resigned, he could no longer pursue a complaint within the company.

The employer submitted that the employee was not able to undertake his job and that was why he returned to his former position

In considering this dispute, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

The employee submitted that he was appointed to the coordinator position with little or no training or support.  The respondent denied this.  However, when this aspect was pursued with the witnesses for the respondent, they were not in a position to provide any detail of supports or training provided to the employee.

Arising from questioning as regards the investigation process, it became apparent for the employer’s responses that it did not follow any set procedures regarding the investigation of allegations made by the complainant or allegations made against the complainant. Rather, it appears that the decision to dismiss the employees’ complaints and to proceed to investigate the complaints made against the employee was made unilaterally. 

The documentation submitted by the employer indicated that the decision to demote the employee was taken by the Board.  However, when one of the directors who was present as a witness was asked about the Boards discussions that led to this decision to demote the employee, he indicated that no such discussion took place.  The Chair, who was also present as a witness, when asked how this decision came to be made, indicated that he didn’t recall but indicated that it must have been made because that what the documentation said.

Having considered the written and oral submissions made in relation to this dispute, I can find very little evidence of the existence of documented processes or staff supports, and therefore conclude that such processes, where they exist, were not sufficient to deal with a workforce it employed.

Arising from the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this dispute, I recommend that the employer introduce a comprehensive probation policy, including regular probation meetings and performance assessments.

I also recommend that the employer introduce a dignity at work policy and accompanying procedures.

I further recommend that the employer introduce a comprehensive disciplinary policy which includes guidelines to be followed in investigations and reporting of breaches of the policy.

Industrial relations dispute, probation, HR policy