Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Security Worker

Security Service Provider

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-00047200

16/11/2021

This case is concerned with a dispute as to how the employer dealt with a grievance/complaint of bullying by the worker. In December 2021 the worker was dismissed which he relates directly to referring this dispute to the WRC. A claim of unfair dismissal is decided separately.

The worker commenced employment as a security worker based at a local hospital in October 2019. He gave as his gross pay €279.00 working a twenty-four-hour week. In August 2020 he left the site and made a complaint against a named supervisor specifically about the way that person spoke to him which he described as shouting and speaking to him with no respect.  The employer told him they were going to investigate his complaint. In October 2020 they wrote to him. They decided that there was insufficient evidence to support his complaint as the named supervisor had denied all the allegations. When he returned from sick leave, he found that HR met only with the supervisor and interviewed nobody else among the workers. A few weeks later the same supervisor began to make complaints against the claimant sending emails that he was leaving work early or going to the shop. He described these complaints as lies-it was all just to get rid of him. Others on the site went to the shop or went home at lunch time- and the same supervisor had no difficulty with that-only because it was him.

In March 2021 he received a notice of a disciplinary meeting in relation to his leaving the site early on an unspecified date.

On 21.05.2021 the worker left the site-he could not work in that environment. He sent an email about the situation and then went out sick on certified medical certificates which cited workplace stress. He referred to racism and being treated differently to others. There was a meeting with him in early June and around that time he used the term bullying. In June 2021 he began recording what the supervisor was saying about him. He sent an email about others leaving the site early saying there were no complaints about them-only him. Again, he received a reply from HR stating that, among other points, that there was insufficient evidence to support his complaint as the supervisor had denied all the allegations. As far as he was concerned the complaint was not properly investigated and he replied to HR to this effect. He claimed that named supervisors were gossiping him, which he described as bullying, watching him, ganging up on him, watching him on CCTV when he went to the toilets and whispering about him. He wanted the employer to look at CCTV, but they told him they could not do so because of GDPR, but his point is that they could use the CCTV to watch him.

On November 12th he sent an email to the office that he was leaving because of the way a named supervisor spoke to him. That complaint was ignored. On November 16th he referred a dispute to the WRC concerning the manner in which his complaints were dealt with by the employer. From this point in the chronology, the matter moves to the events which culminated in his dismissal and the claim of unfair dismissal which are set out in that decision.

The employer was represented at the hearing by a HR Manager who was not the HR Manager at the time of the complaints, grievances. When asked for evidence to support his complaints, the worker provided none. There were separate meetings with him, and the supervisor involved. No evidence was found to support his claims. In March 2021 the worker was going to be discipline for leaving the site-absent without permission. The worker subsequently went out sick and the disciplinary procedure was not concluded. There is a later complaint on file, of bullying, again no evidence was found to support the complaint-the evidence was mainly verbal.

Clearly there were differences between the worker and his supervisors and he took exception to the way in which more than one spoke to or about him. There is a pattern of him leaving the site when he was annoyed over the conduct of one or other supervisor. He did not accept any explanation given to him by HR.  Nonetheless the worker made very serious allegations ranging from what might be termed a grievance through to references to racism and bullying. In such circumstances, a more considered approach might have been mediation between the worker and especially his main supervisor during the period August 2020 to June 2021. The investigation procedures followed by the employer during this period fall well short the standard which it is reasonable to expect would be followed by any employer faced with such serious allegations. Two meetings where there are no notes, or none provided to the complainant, where he is expected to provide all the evidence and charges are dismissed solely on the basis that the supervisor denied them, if applied generally in employment would result in practically any complaint being dismissed if all the accused had to do was to deny the charges to have them rejected. Proper, fair, procedures are necessary to preserve the reputations of all employees and at the same time to ensure that any complaint is fully heard and any rejection of a complaint is objectively and not subjectively justified. The findings of the two investigations of complaints by the worker were subjectively justified-based on the personal statements of the supervisor. In arriving at these conclusions, it is notable that when the same employer wished to embark upon a disciplinary procedure in March 2021 against the complainant, the usual procedures were followed and in detail-notification, subject matter, right to be accompanied, possible outcomes. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that HR were well versed in how to conduct the procedures when they were the prosecuting their own concerns, but not so diligent when the worker in this case was the protagonist in his own cause.

Given there are statutory instruments concerned with complaints of harassment(racism) and bullying and a statutory instrument concerned with how grievances should be handled by any employer, compensation is recommended in this dispute in favour of the worker not only because of the failings in the handling of his complaints but also to ensure that the employer will take steps to avoid any reoccurrence of the mis steps found in this case. Had this dispute been heard while the worker was in the employment, undoubtedly there would have been a recommendation that the complaints be independently and fully investigated by an external third party at the employers expense.

Nothing in these conclusions should be interpreted as a finding that the complaints made by the worker were substantially justified, or not.

Grievance/Bullying Investigation