ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00035873
Parties:
| The Worker | The Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Store Manager | A Supermarket |
Representatives | Self Represented | Kiwana Ennis BL instructed by Vincent & Beatty Solicitors |
Complaint(s):
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 | 24/03/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 8th November 2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.
Background:
The Worker alleged he was subject to bullying and harassment. The Worker did not specify any further detail in his complaint form but expanded on the complaint at the Hearing. The Employer denied the complaint. As an observation, providing no detail in a complaint form or in advance of a Hearing is not reasonable to an Employer who are operating “on the blind” at the Hearing however the Employer had anticipated the complaint detail and were prepared to give a response at the Hearing. |
Summary of Worker’s Case:
The Worker said he was bullied in April 2019 when he was promoted to run a Store as Store Manager. The worker was employed since 2006. The Worker said there was no information at the store to familiarise himself with the Store and he had difficulties with tasks. He stated he was left instructions about holidays in a folder and had no access to a computer system on holidays. He stated rotas were done in advance of him arriving and the previous Manger had left 13 weeks beforehand with no handover. He said nothing was planned and everything was left to him. He met a senior Manager on the second day and told “get the jobs done by Friday”. An audit was done and some items were found to be out of date. New starters were coming on board and this added to pressures. He had to work at home for two nights to get on top of things. There was confusion about a start time for a meeting. His boss told him just get the jobs done and “you work for me”. The worker stated there was no log in for him to a system for 2 to 3 weeks. He scored 82% in an audit and was expected to achieve 100%. He could not reset passwords for staff. He went on sick leave for two weeks. He stated he achieved a score of 426 on an audit but the system only showed 421. He stated some hours were changed on a system without his acceptance. He was challenged by his Manager in the Canteen and other staff present and he felt this was not appropriate. He was told he should leave the job if not willing to listen. The worker stated he had no performance issues. He was informed it was illegal to sell stock out of date. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Employer responded to several of the above issues but in conclusion stated that most or all of these issues were operational issues and none off the issues the Worker mentioned could satisfy the definition of bullying or be classified as bullying. The issues ether related to meetings, operational issues and issue with the Workers Supervisor. Most issues have been dealt with through an extensive grievance process and concluded in a letter dated August 28th 2019 which analysed all the issues and reached conclusions on them. The operating issues have been explained to the Worker concerned and the Employer do not agree with the Workers assessment of the situation. The Employer did not agree that because the Worker had raised a grievance that they “had turned against him” and that he was threated or intimated. |
Findings and Conclusions:
What appears to have happened in this situation is the Worker was promoted and found it very difficult to come to terms with his new role and instead of taking initiatives was seeking to be told and informed about every little detail. Obviously, issues arose during the Workers first few weeks in the new role but the directions he received were more in line with instructions about what to focus on than any form of bullying. It could be that the Worker was not ready or adequately prepared to undertake the role he was promoted to at the time and therefore every day to day operational issue that arose seems to have escalated into a big issue, frustrating all involved. Both parties need to take responsibility for this issue. There is no question that the Handover (or lack of) did not go well and the Worker suffered because of this in terms of doing his duties and coping with the situation he found himself in. Nothing presented at the Hearing would justify the Adjudicator making a determination of bulling and harassment. I find that the Complaint is not well founded. |
Recommendation
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I recommend that, if one does not exist, that a Handover Manual with all the various policies and issues/checklist to be covered with a new Manager be prepared by the Company for use in the future. I also recommend that any future appointments to Store Manager be given a formal training session on operational issues in advance of taking up the post of Store Manager. I also recommend that any future conversations about performance issues be conducted in private with the Worker concerned. |
Dated: 6th January 2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:
Key Words:
Trade Dispute |