Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Former Employee

An Employer

Representatives

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act

CA – 00055627-001

21/03/2023

The worker had an interview for a quality assistant technician role. She thought the role was very interesting. She was interviewed by MM and SS. She was interviewed for two positions, Quality System Technician role and the Quality Technician role. She explained that she was a graduate and would need some assistance or some training. The Respondent agreed to provide her with that. A few weeks later she got an offer. She started on the 5th September. She had standard induction training. It included a risk module. After that she was taken up to her workstation. Her station had no laptop. She was told it was on order, but it hadn’t arrived yet. She was shown another station and was shown a PC and was told all printing should be done through that. The PC only had one screen. Usually, they would have two screens, for the purpose of analysing data. Secondly, her chair did not have any back support. She had back problems and needed a chair with support. Everyone else had back support chairs. She didn’t have a chair for a few weeks. She was not issued with a training plan. She asked for it. She was given a number of procedures to read. She did that but it went on for weeks. After all of that she realised that she wasn’t part of any distribution group. Usually, one would be invited into that group on the first day of their induction, but she was not. There were other groups she should have been a part of, but she hadn’t been included. She asked MM, her manager, if she could include her in all of the emails she should have been included in, so that she could do the job she was hired to do.

There was also a Train Tracks platform that she had not been given access to it. She asked MM when she would get access to it. She said she couldn’t get access to it until she had a training plan issued. She asked when that would be done. MM said she had been up all-night meeting leaders of various groups and she didn’t have time to do it at the moment. She put it on the back burner, and she just turned up for work and tried to learn as much as she could herself. She was approached by a number of colleagues who told her she needed to get out of the role as quickly as she could because her boss was “absolutely nuts”. She decided, after talking to a colleague, to keep going and to see how it goes. She was doing tasks to keep herself busy that weren’t part of her role. That went on for weeks. Only one or two of the tasks were actually what she was employed to do.

MM tasked her to do a KPI report. She hadn’t been trained in that area. MM gave her a precedent and told her to cut and paste it. She also only had one screen which made it very difficult and her chair was still unsuitable. She did the task to the best of her ability. She presented it to MM, who said she would look at it when she got a chance. She never did.

Then she was given a supplier quality review task. She had to reach out to their suppliers and asking the to confirm the supplies did not contain toxins listed on the specified list. Once she received the form back, she had to complete it and present it to MM. She gave it to her and again she said that she would look at it when she got a chance.

Every evening she would leave her work ready for anyone who needed to work on it if she was out sick or absent etc. She had a basket on her desk where she left her work.

The manufacturing investigation: Theses involved issues with implants used in surgeries. These products were produced by other companies. MM brought her into this area. It did require training. She reached out to a colleague to give her some training. The colleague did that for her. She started to work on that area but there was only one or two a week. This is a very sensitive area as any errors or issues can affect the patient who is receiving an implant. MM reviewed one or two of her investigations. She was happy with her work. She documented that she had signed her off as fully trained.

A few weeks later there was a charity event. Everyone was supposed to wear red. She didn’t get the email as she was included on the email list despite asking numerous times. She decided to deal with her herself, so she went to IT and made them aware of her issue. IT asked MM if she could be added to the email list, but she never got back to them. She felt excluded.

Then she was tasked with more difficult tasks which required two screens. She told MM that she couldn’t do it without two screens. IT issued a screen to her. Her laptop still hadn’t arrived, again this made her feel excluded.

During the period when she had two screens she continued to be trained in an ad hoc way. Things then started to get worse.  Tasks she was given would be changed throughout the week. When she asked for help from MM she was greeted with bad moods, slamming fists on desks and shouting things like “what don’t you understand” . She felt she was being belittled and was humiliated in front of her colleagues. She is well educated and shouldn’t have been spoken to like that.

MM handed her a folder full of stickers. She was told look at them and do what the stickers say. She was so confused. It wasn’t anything she had done before and wasn’t her job.  Despite that she was willing to learn. She asked a colleague if she could help her as she felt she couldn’t go to MM for help as she was always in a bad mood and was dismissive of her.  She got some assistance and started on the task. MM say that she was doing it and came over to her and said “how did you do that”? She told her that she got assistance from a colleague and then MM got angry with her and told her never to ask a colleague for help. She was supposed to go to her if she had questions. She felt so downbeat. She was waking up every morning stressed and upset. She told her GP that she was stressed about being bullied in the workplace. She asked him not to say anything because she didn’t want it to get worse. When she finally handed the completed task to MM she never even looked at it and she never gave her any feedback.

In relation to another task, she was criticized by MM in front of everyone. MM towered over her and spoke down to her. She was so humiliated.

Then there was an FDA audit. It was only after that she was given a training plan.

Being excluded from the systems, emails, being humiliated and bullied by her manager felt her very upset and stressed.

She was given her training plan. She studied it. She was to have on the job training too.

She was asked by MM to check other peoples work. She did that. She noted that some where not signing off on the documents. This raised non conformant reports. She was left with an NCR GPS 18 told her how to process the NCR. It was her job to follow up with the investigation and to determine why the errors were occurring. It’s on her training plan, module 8, quality systems. She was being tasked to do this, with no training. All she had done was read the training manual. MM was supposed to train her on the job. She asked and after that she was then taken into a room with MM for one hour . The room was full of stuff and there was nowhere to sit. MM tried to clear all the folders away by throwing them aside. She tried to help but was told not to. Then the procedure was read to her word for word, slowly.  At the end she was asked “what do you not understand” . She again felt humiliated, sad, incompetent and degraded. She has a Master’s degree. She is not an idiot. She is very diligent and if she ever needs help, she asks for it so that she does the task correctly and to a high quality. Then she discovered the procedure she was given wasn’t the correct one, it was a product NCR. She was tasked with a process NCR. There isn’t a procedure for that. With the nature of the work she was tasked to do, procedures were vital. Not having the process procedure and not being able to ask anyone what to do, left her isolate and stuck. She also had no knowledge how to close the NCR. MM took her into a room and ridiculed her because she didn’t know how to close the NCR. She told MM, “The procedure you gave me isn’t the correct one, it doesn’t apply”. She shouted back “oh it does, it does, just follow it” She was angry and patronising. She then discarded her work and asked someone else to do it with her.

She was once again left isolated, ridiculed and embarrassed. She didn’t know what to do. She wasn’t given the correct procedure and wasn’t allowed to ask for help. She did go to another colleague and when that colleague looked at her work, she said it was all wrong and asked why she had done it this way. MM had told her to do it this way. She said it should never be done that way. She then presented it to MM and she didn’t even look at it and left it in her basket on her desk. She couldn’t close it until MM reviewed it. There are time scales that state when these things should be closed. She felt she was being set up for failure. Other colleagues were telling her she was being set up and that she shouldn’t stand for it.

Then she had a performance review. She did have some absenteeism issue due to ill health as a result of the stress she was subjected to at work. Her “three month” review didn’t happen. She had her “six month” review. She was given a document wherein MM said she was inexperienced and gets distracted easily and needs to wear earphones to block out the surrounding noise. She has worked in busy offices before and has never had an issue with concentration or background noise. She is a very conscientious, hard working, well educated person and felt once again humiliated by MM review of her.

She was on flexi time. That was set out in her contract. She started at 8.30 approximately. She was constantly asked about her start time/ finish time. That annoyed her.

She couldn’t take it anymore. She went to her doctor who told her that the Respondent wasn’t a good fit for her.

She got new employment of 2nd May 2023. She finished with the Responded 28rd February. She was out of work for two months. Her loss of earnings is € 4,960 gross.

The Respondent in cross examination stated that the Complainant did not engage with or utilise any of the internal procedures. The Complainant states that she didn’t because she was put down on a daily basis. Every procedure that she read and understood, fell through. She has absolutely no faith in the system. She wasn’t the only one who had those difficulties. She was bullied and she decided to put her mental health first. She is now eight months in her new role and she is so happy and her mental health is better.

The Complainant spoke to KK and others on numerous occasions about one other individual and she outlined the issues she was having with her. Despite speaking to KK on numerous occasions she never mentioned that she was being bullied. The issues she addressed where about the way a manager was speaking to another employee. She never mentioned that she was being treated badly.  The Respondent advised her how she could deal with the issues she addressed about the other employee and how to invoke the internal processes. She never did. The Complainant stated that those procedures didn’t work for anyone else so why would they work for her. She knew of the bullying and harassment policy, but she had no faith that it would work with her. The Respondent also invited her to attend with an off-site training that might be of assistance to her. The Complainant said there was no point.

The Respondent stated that they could do nothing about the issues she has raised at the hearing because she never raised them with the Respondent via any of there internal procedures.  

The Complainant stated that she told some people in production and some of the quality engineers and the senior engineers about her issues and they all said that they saw it coming because “MM is like that with everyone”

The Respondent stated that because she didn’t utilise the procedure/s she placed the Respondent in a difficult position because they didn’t know about it and therefore, they couldn’t do anything about it. The Complainant said that the Respondent should have seen it coming because MM was a problem and lots of people had already left because of her.

The Complainant commenced employment with The Respondent on the 5th September 2022.  The Complainant was assigned with a desk with standard workstation equipment – this would have been the same equipment that would be assigned to all non-production employees, i.e. own desk with desktop computer, screen, keyboard, mouse and standard desk chair. Depending on the role new employees are either assigned a laptop or desktop computer. As this was a desk-based role, the Complainant was provided with a desktop computer. At this time, the Respondent was in the process of IT integration with IG IT (due to the acquisition of The Respondent by IG) and new laptops were on order but had yet to be delivered. Prior to the integration all IT support was provided by IG IT. During this time there were some intermittent IT related issues throughout the Respondent  entity that all employees were experiencing. Once a laptop was available, it was issued to the Complainant.

The induction training form was provided to the Complainant at the start of the day and induction training started on day 1 of her employment. She was trained as follows:

o Contamination Control Training Slides – 05 September 2022

 o HR Policies & Procedures – 05 September 2022

 o Overview of Softworks / Project wise – 05 September 2022

 o The Complainant was added to payroll – form provided on the 05 September 2022

 o The Complainant was added to company healthcare – form provided on the 05 September 2022 

As per induction training procedure, the induction training that was to be provided within the first 5 days was completed for the Complainant within that time except for MPS002 Gowning Procedure for the classified manufacturing cleanroom – to be completed prior to commencing work in the cleanroom. As this role was not in the cleanroom and did not have any reason to be in the cleanroom, this training was not required within the first 5 days. The Complainant completed this on 25 January 2023. The Complainant was added to the Train Tracks system. The Complainant completed this on 30 January 2023. In the preceding months, due to the IT integration with IG, there were intermittent connectivity issues with logging onto Train Tracks and all training was being recorded in hardcopy format. This was discussed with the Complainant at the time. The Complainant was added to the email Document Control Notification System – (to be completed by IG). IG were the IT company who managed all of the IT activity at the time. This was recorded as completed by the Complainant on 30 January 2023, but the Complainant would have been included on the notification emails prior to this date. The Employee signature identification log was completed by the Complainant on 12 October 2022.

All her other induction training was completed between 05 – 12 October 2022, except for one part of the training that was completed on 30 January 2023.  Introduction to the company, Organisational chart – 05 October 2022. Health & Safety – 05 October 2022. Operations QMS – 06 October 2022. Quality Induction Training – 12 October 2022. Design Services Procedures – 06 October 2022. Review of training plan and GPS004 Training Policy – recorded on the 30 January 2023 but an overview of GPS004 was completed on the 07 September 2022

 A training plan for the Complainant’s role was not immediately available on her commencement of employment because this was a new role and work was underway to finalise the training requirements for TP035. However, the Complainant was provided with training in relation to the Quality Systems Snr Engineer Lead training plan, TP020 and this training started on 07 September 2022. The training plan is very comprehensive and for the most part is read and understand. This training was ongoing for some time with each section of training being signed off on various dates. During this training, the Complainant’s manager sat in the desk behind her and was available to answer any questions that the Complainant had. A Non-Conformance Report (NCR) was assigned to the Complainant shortly after 27th January 2023. A non-conformance report is where an element of a requirement was not adhered to, in this case a standard operating procedure. The Complainant was assisting in the investigation of the root cause of the non-conformance.  The Complainant noted the following in her WRC complaint form: “My manager repeatedly instructed me to not reach out to anyone of my team members for guidance and support”. As part of this investigation the Complainant was tasked with completing an independent review of the affected record and for this reason was asked not to discuss this with her colleagues until the review of all records was completed. Over the days following the assignment of the NCR the Quality Systems Engineer Lead had provided six hours training to the Complainant and a Quality Assurance Engineer was subsequently assigned to mentor the Complainant.

 From September 2022 to February 2023 the Complainant spoke with HR on different occasions in relation to issues she was having with a colleague within her department. These conversations were all on an informal basis where the Complainant spoke about conversations or instances where her colleague had been speaking unfavourably about their mutual manager or regarding the manner in which her colleague had spoken with the Complainant. At no point were any complaints made by the Complainant in relation to this colleague or a request by the Complainant for HR to address this in any way. The Complainant was asking HR for guidance on how to deal with these situations and HR provided such guidance. At no point during these conversations were any issues raised by the Complainant in relation to her manager. On 08 February 2023 the Complainant and her manager met to discuss her probation review. At this review meeting the Complainant was advised that, based on several factors including time and attendance, her probation period was to be extended by three months. During the period 19 September 2022 to 08 January 2023 the Complainant had been absent for a total of 14.5 days.

On 14 February 2023 the Complainant requested via Teams to speak with HR. • HR met with the Complainant that morning (14 February 2023). The Complainant asked to move role. When HR asked why she wanted to move role her response was:

 o She was unhappy with the training provided;

 o She did not agree with her probation review;

o She did not like how her manager was speaking to her; and

 o She was not allowed to get help from other team members.

 The Complainant asked HR what she (the Complainant) can do to address these concerns. HR asked if the Complainant had spoken with her manager. The Complainant’s response was no. HR asked if the Complainant had spoken with her manager’s manager. The Complainant’s response was no.

 HR asked the Complainant if she would be able to speak with her manager. The Complainant said yes. HR explained that the first step they advise people to take is to try to first resolve issues directly with their manager, unless they felt that this was not an option. The Complainant stated that she did not want to speak with her manager’s manager out of respect for her manager. The Complainant said she would speak with her manager. The Complainant asked if she could email her manager with a list of issues and then have a meeting with her manager to talk this through. HR said yes, if that would be beneficial to the Complainant to ensure all her concerns were addressed. HR asked the Complainant if she wanted HR to speak with her manager, to which she replied no. HR advised that, after the Complainant speaks with her manager, if she still wanted to move role, she would be best advised to put this request in writing to HR. The Complainant thanked HR and stated that she had a lot to think about and that she would revert to HR with her decision or if she needed anything else.  HR bumped into the Complainant later that day or on the next day and asked how she was getting on and the Complainant replied that she was getting on with her work and that she was ok. HR reiterated that if she needed anything further to let them know.

The Complainant’s assertion in her WRC complaint form, as follows: “the attitude directed to me from my supervisor of The Respondent management is unprofessional as the tones conveyed are highly condescending, insulting, amounting to verbal abuse and bullying”.

Prior to the meeting on 14 February 2023, the Complainant had not raised any concerns or made any complaint with HR regarding her manager or any of the Respondent Management Team. At no time did the Complainant utilise any of the company polices or procedures to address any issues. At no time during the conversation with HR did she say that her manager was bullying her.

 As the Complainant did not want HR to speak with her manager in relation to the conversation on 14 February 2023 no further action was taken. The Complainant emailed her manager and HR on 16 February 2023 to advise that she was ill and would not be able to work. The Complainant did not state the reason for the absence except that she was ill. During the meeting on 14 February the Complainant had mentioned that she had a sore throat and that she thought it was tonsillitis.

On 17 February 2023, the Complainant emailed her manager and HR advising that she was still sick. On 20 February 2023, the Complainant emailed her manager and HR advising that she was still unwell and was going to attend her GP and would follow up with a medical cert. On 21 February 2023 the Complainant emailed her manager and HR stating that she was still unwell and would send on a medical cert once she had it. On 21 February 2023 the Complainant emailed her manager and HR with resignation letter. Later that day the Complainant emailed her manager and HR with her medical certs attached for periods 10 – 13 February – absence reason tonsillitis.  16 – 21 February – absence reason tonsillitis.

On 22 February 2023 HR responded to the Complainant’s resignation letter addressing the points raised and asking her to reconsider her resignation and to try first to resolve any concerns using the Company’s policies and procedures. On 23 February 202 the Complainant emailed her manager and HR to advise that she wanted to proceed with her resignation. On 23 February 2023, HR replied to the Complainant accepting her resignation and asked the Complainant to confirm her effective end date. On 24 February 2023, the Complainant emailed HR to confirm her effective end date would be 28 February 2023. On 24 February 2023, HR replied to the Complainant’s email confirming the date her final pay would be processed and annual leave entitlement that would be paid in the last pay period. On 28 February 2023 the Complainant emailed HR advising that she was still sick and that she would return her employee badge by post. The Complainant outlined again the reason why she would not reconsider her resignation. On 01 March 2023 The Complainant emailed RN, IG TA Specialist, copying HR, applying for a QC Supervisor role.

The Complainant stated in her evidence that she was out sick due to work related stress however all of her sick certs are silent in relation to that issue.

The Complainant took issues with the desktop being issued to her when everyone got a laptop and said that she felt like she was being singled out. The Respondent stated that numerous people were assigned desktops. At that time they were moving IT support and it took time to set up all the new equipment. The Complainant’s role was more desk based so it was more appropriate to give her a desktop until the entire new system was set up.

The Complainant stated that it took several months to get credentials for Train Tracks. The Respondent didn’t know when she got her credentials however there were issues at that time setting everyone up to train tracks and that is probably why she didn’t get her credentials for some time.

The Complainant commenced her employment with the Respondent in September 2022. During the hearing she outlined numerous issues she was having both with the job itself and with the lack of training she was given. She stated that she was not given a chair with appropriate back support. Others had those chairs. She only had one screen which made certain parts of her job extremely difficult. She wasn’t given a training plan. She was excluded from e-mails. She wasn’t given access to Train Tracks. She was very unhappy about her Manager’s attitude towards her and others.

I note from the Respondent’s evidence and from the documentation submitted that the vast majority of the Complainant’s issues were resolved in time. She was given a second screen by IT, she did get access to Train Tracks albeit it wasn’t until late January 2023. She did eventually get her training plan. Some of the issues were due to the acquisition that had happened immediately prior to the Complainant commencing with the Respondent and as a result of the change in IT systems.  

In relation to the most serious of the allegations, the Bullying and Harassment, I note that the Complainant was asked by HR if she would like them to approach her manager for her but she said “No”. She was also asked to come back to HR if things didn’t get better. She never did. The process for making a complaint was explained to her. She did not file a formal complaint. She was also informed that if she wanted to transfer to a different department she would have to apply in writing. She never did that.  Instead, she handed in her resignation because as she stated, she was too stressed and she decided to put her mental health first.  She did so without giving the Respondent an opportunity to deal with the issue. It is worth noting that none of the Complainant’s sick certificates stated that she was on leave due to work related stress. The certificates are contrary to the Complainant’s evidence that she was stressed and on anti-depressants.

There is a general obligation on the employee to exhaust the Company’s internal grievance procedures as is set out in McCormack v Dunnes Stores, UD 1421/2008:

“The notion places a high burden of proof on an employee to demonstrate that he or she acted reasonably and had exhausted all internal procedures formal or otherwise in an attempt to resolve her grievance with his/her employers. The employee would need to demonstrate that the employer's conduct was so unreasonable as to make the continuation of employment with the particular employer intolerable.”

The importance of exhausting the internal grievance processes was also highlighted in Terminal Four Solutions Ltd v Rahman, UD 898/2011:

“Furthermore, it is incumbent on any employee to utilise all internal remedies made available to him unless he can show that said remedies are unfair”.

The Complainant stated that she was aware of the procedure but felt that it would have been a pointless exercise. She had no faith in the process. However, HR did give her options and she did not avail of any of them. I also find the Complainant’s application for a different job within the Respondent entity hard to understand if things were as bad as she perceived them to be.  That said, there is little doubt in my mind that there were issues with MM’s management skills and that the Complainant struggled to deal with that style of management. I also note that it took the Respondent some considerable time to set the Complainant up properly, so that she could do the job she was employed to do. On that basis and that basis only I am making the following recommendation:

1.       The Respondent is to pay to the Complainant the sum of €1000 as a goodwill gesture on or before the 31st December 2023.

I recommend that the Respondent pay to the Complainant the sum of €1,000.00 on or before the 31st December 2023.

Resignation. Exhaust Internal process. Bullying and Harassment.