ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: ADJ-00036805
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | Project Lead | AI Business |
Representatives | Complainant represented himself | No attendance |
Dispute(s):
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Industrial Relations Act 1969 | CA-00047962 | 03/01/2022 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Janet Hughes
Date of Hearing: 26/08/2022
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended)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 information relevant to the dispute.
On 23rd August 2022, a representative of the employer contended that their client was not properly notified of the dispute or in the alternative had objected within the twenty-one-day limit provided for objecting/not objecting to a hearing of the dispute by an Adjudication Officer -allowing for the date of receipt of a notice of the dispute. The WRC reviewed the file and on 25th August wrote to the Respondent solicitor advising that the WRC wrote to the employer on 20th January 2022 with a notice of the complaint. Further communication issued to the employer on February 15th, 2022. On February 28th, the employer emailed the WRC but at no time indicated an objection to the dispute being heard by an Adjudication Officer. Notice of the hearing was issued on June 15th. On July 5th the WRC was notified that a named legal representative was on record which was recorded on the file. This communication contained the first reference to an objection to the dispute being heard.
The letter from the WRC went on to remind the representative of the 21-day limit for objecting to a hearing of a trade dispute specified in the Industrial Relations Act 1969. No response was received to the WRC letter of August 28th.
As adjudication officer in this dispute, I am satisfied the employer was properly notified of the dispute and am guided by the WRC in this matter. I therefore proceeded with the hearing.
The employer did not attend and provided no written statement of their position on the substance of the dispute.
The terms employee and employer are used to describe the parties in the body of the text.
Background:
This dispute is concerned with a claim that the employee resigned from his employment due to the behaviour of the employer, specifically certain managers, throughout the period of his employment culminating in an adverse probation review which he was not permitted to appeal as a grievance. The employment commenced 24.03.2021. The employee was engaged as a project lead on a salary of €40000 per annum. The employment ended on 29.10.2021 |
Summary of Workers Case:
The employee gave a chronological account of the difficulties he experienced in the employment in writing and at the hearing. Those difficulties can be categorised as follows: Early difficulties and differences with his line manager including remarks addressed to him in group meetings and a difference she described as between his understanding of the training he had received and in relation to GDPR and the practical application of those policies. An increased level of difficulty with the same manager after he gave feedback to HR in what he thought was a confidential feedback session which led him to believe that his feedback was repeated to the line manager. Unsuccessful efforts to correct his managers treatment of him. A probation review by the line manager which resulted in his probation being extended to Christmas 2021(three months) and being placed on a PIP. No issues of poor performance were cited as to why his probation was unsuccessful. Following a refusal by HR to allow him to place a grievance in relation to the probation review-which was provided for in the company handbook, he felt that he could not stay any longer. After he had submitted his resignation, he was contacted by a director who agreed that some of the practices applied by his manager re Sunday work and overtime were not correct. These were corrected in his final payment. The employee explained that he had been really affected by the treatment he received from the manager and the refusal to follow their own procedures in not allowing him to challenge the probation report finally made it impossible for him to stay for another three months in that environment reporting to that manager. This was a job he had really wanted. His confidence was so damaged that it had affected his interview performance in trying to get alternative work. He sought compensation. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
There was no submission on behalf of the employer to consider. |
Conclusions:
For obvious reasons I had no other side of the story to hear in this case. However, having read the case presented including the detail, and most importantly having met the employee, I was struck both by his sincerity and the standards he seemed to set for himself. His issues with the line manager were ongoing and never really abated. Some of the difficulties he experienced could possibly be described as personality differences, but others were very contrary negative opinions of his view of his responsibilities which were then turned back at him in a very personal manner-or at least this is the way they came across from the detail and the chronology provided. The piece about the feedback given to HR being relayed to the manager and finally the refusal of HR to allow him to follow their own procedures are inexplicable. One exposed him the wrath of the line manager and the other left him entirely isolated without any recourse to making his case. Effectively leaving him at the mercy of the line manager during an extended probationary period. It is the case that many procedural agreements would not allow for a grievance in relation to an extension of a probationary period-and I put this to the employee-but when he read at the hearing the very clear proviso in the staff policy which provides for just such an appeal, it was clear why he was entitled to take a view that the bond of trust and basic fairness owed to him were breached and to such an extent that his position was untenable. I genuinely hope that having his case heard and his claim upheld will help the employee move on to gainful employment. Notwithstanding the voluntary nature of the procedure that is the Industrial Relations Act, I hope that some learning will follow into the employment and the relatively modest amount of compensation recommended will be paid by the employer to their former employee. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I recommend the sum of €5000 compensation be paid by the employer in this case to resolve this dispute.
Dated: 7th September 2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Janet Hughes
Key Words:
Constructive dismissal |