Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Manager

Charity

Representatives

Conor O'Gorman

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-00041221-001

24 November 2020

A complaint form was received by the WRC from the worker on 24 November 2020.  A hearing took place on 9 August 2022.

The worker provided a detailed written submission.

By way of background the worker explained that she is a senior manager in a large charity, which employs approximately 400 people nationwide.

The worker submits that she submitted a formal complaint to the Chairperson of the Board of her employer under the company’s Dignity at Work Policy and Procedure on 24 September 2020, in relation to the then CEO of the organisation.  It is the worker’s contention that in the handling of her complaint, the Board breached the Policy repeatedly, demonstrated a clear bias towards the CEO and denied her rights under the principles of natural justice.

In her submission the worker outlined that after she submitted her complaint it was subject to inordinate delays.  She also submits that the manner and timing of how the Chairperson carried out and sought to communicate the outcome of the preliminary screening process was in clear contravention of the Policy.

The worker submits that a mediator was appointed unilaterally by the Board to undertake a formal investigation, this, in the worker’s view, despite the mediator having already formed an opinion of the worker from communications with the Chairperson.

On 12 November 2020, the worker requested a definitive course of action on progressing her complaint from the Chairperson or she would be left with no choice but to submit a complaint to the WRC. The Chairperson did not send her any proposed course of action.  At the same time, the worker also informed the Chairperson of a marked deterioration in workplace relations towards her.  These difficult and highly stressful workplace relations continued until the CEO left the organisation.

Despite several attempts to progress matters the worker felt her employer was not doing what was required of it. The complete lack of direction from the Board and the wholly unacceptable delay in progressing her complaint took a significant toll on her and caused great stress.

On 26 November 2020, the worker received a letter and Terms of Reference for the investigation from the Board; she was asked to review, sign and return the Terms of Reference by 5.00pm the same day. The worker believes this totally unreasonable behaviour in managing her complaint demonstrates once again the partisan nature and biased handling of her complaint.

The worker submits that the letter she received on 26 November, also indicated that she should enter into a mediation process, contrary to the voluntary nature of mediation.

In January 2021, the worker received a number of letters from the Board which she believed were clearly coercive; these letters only served to increase her stress and feeling of upset.

On 8 February 2021, the Board invited the worker to a meeting at two hours’ notice.  To discuss the Terms of Reference of the investigation and progression of the independent investigation into her complaint. The worker was not advised of the formality and specific purpose of the meeting.  Nor was she given any reasonable opportunity to arrange for representation.  The following day she received a letter from the Board which stated the specific purpose of the meeting.  In hindsight, the worker felt she had been tricked about this meeting. If she had been aware of the purpose of the meeting, she would not have attended it without representation.  The worker believes the way this was dealt with amounted to sharp practice.

Regarding the appointment of an Investigator the worker submits that he was appointed unilaterally without any opportunity for her to have an input into the selection process.  The worker had serious reservations about the person appointed to carry out the investigation and she believes his continuation of the investigation was in breach of the Policy; it should not have proceeded in circumstances where a formal complaint to the WRC on the handling of the matter was in train. Nevertheless, the worker submits that she would have considered any other external investigator had a name been put to her.

Despite the worker’s considerable concerns on how the matter was being handled an investigation final report was produced, dated 30 July 2021.  The report found that none of the items of complaint were upheld and that two items were inconclusive.

The worker appealed the outcome of the investigation on 17 September 2021. 

On 24 November 2021, the Board advised the worker that the appeals process had concluded, and the report had been issued.  The worker submits that she had not been afforded an opportunity for a hearing with the appeals office; the appeal was desktop exercise only, based on documentation provided by the Board. This was a completely disenfranchising experience for the worker, and it did not uphold the ethos or spirit of what an appeals process should be.

In concluding the worker submits that the sense of coercion she felt from the Board and its failure to respond to requests for information, continues to impact on her deeply. Not getting a fair and unbiased hearing of this investigation has had consequences for her in that her personal and professional reputation has been discredited.

The worker sought several remedies from the WRC.

The employer provided a detailed written submission

The employer submits that it has a Dignity at Work Policy which “recognises the right of all employees to be treated with dignity and respect and is committed to ensuring that all employees are provided with a safe working environment which is free from all forms of bullying, sexual harassment and harassment.”

The employer submits that on 24 September 2020, the worker submitted a formal complaint to the Chairperson of the organisation. When the Chairperson met with the worker on 28 September 2020, to discuss her complaint, she declined the offer of mediation instead insisting that her complaint be screened externally.  The employer submits that, at a meeting on 5 October 2020, the worker indicated that she wanted the matter dealt with formally.  The employer put forward the idea of mediation being utilised but submits that the worker stated that this was not an avenue she was interested in pursuing. It was agreed an external agency should carry out a preliminary screening process. The employer submits that the worker reiterated her preference for a formal investigation. 

The worker’s complaints of September 2020 were investigated by an external party. When appraised of the findings of the investigator’s report, the worker appealed the findings. The appeal was conducted by another external party.

In concluding, the employer submits that it acted in good faith at all times and explored options that could be used to address the worker’s concerns.  The fact that some misunderstandings arose between the parties during this time was unfortunate.  The employer submits that genuine efforts were made to progress matters.

The employer submits that the passage of time has overtaken events as the matters raised in the worker’s grievance letter of 24 September 2020 have since been investigated by an independent HR professional.

The employer submits that the worker has referenced numerous matters in documents put forward for the WRC Hearing that postdate the submission of her WRC complaint on 24 November 2020.  The remedies sought by the worker in her submission to the WRC were not in her original complaint and for the most part these alleged matters took place after 24 November 2020 and therefore do not fall to be considered (by the AO in this case) as they do not form part of the WRC adjudication file number ADJ-00031042.

I accept the bona fides of the parties in this case and it is unfortunate that what has taken place has had a negative impact on the relationship between worker and employer, a worker it should be noted that has a long unblemished service record with the employer organisation.

The worker raised genuine concerns and the way the employer dealt with these concerns left a lot to be desired.  This, not unnaturally, caused a lot of stress for the worker in an already fraught environment. 

The employer has accepted that the matter was not dealt with in the way it should have been and although there may be reasons to explain this, more is expected of an employer.  The manner the complaints were dealt with could and should have been significantly better.

The worker could have perhaps been more flexible in her approach to the proceedings given the circumstances of the period and the difficulties created by the pandemic.

Although time has moved on since the worker submitted her complaint to the WRC it behoves me to put forward a recommendation which I believe can assist in restoring a harmonious relationship between the worker and the employer.  I have carefully considered how this might be done and I make three recommendations.

1.       All staff and Board Members to receive refresher training on Dignity at Work, including the handling of complaints.

2.       That both employer and worker accept the outcome of the investigation and the complaints which gave rise to the investigation are moot and as such are null and void.

3.       That as a gesture of goodwill and in recognition of the stress this matter has caused for the worker, I recommend the employer grant the worker an additional five days paid annual leave, to be taken at the worker’s discretion, on a once off basis, stand-alone basis.

Policy, procedures, stress