Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Director of Engineering

A Software Company

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00051042-001

07/06/2022

In August 2021 the complainant made a formal complaint to the respondent that several people, including himself, had been subjected to repeated bullying, harassment, and inappropriate behaviour by his line manager.

The company's HR department initiated an investigation but as the alleged perpetrator resigned no further action was taken against her.

The investigation was concluded on October 20th, 2021, with a statement from the company that there had been a violation of its Workplace Code of Ethics and Business Conduct, and the matter was closed.

The company offered a seven-day period for an appeal of the investigation findings and the complainant did appeal seeking a formal apology, recognition that he had been wronged, and appropriate compensation.

There was an unacceptable delay in getting a response, for follow up meetings, as meetings were often canceled at short notice by senior officers such as the Head of HR.

Ultimately on May 6th, 2022, he received an email follow up to a meeting of March 4th confirming that there was to be no further action, beyond an offer of counseling through the Employee Assistance Programme.

This complaint is made on the basis that the repeated incidents of bullying and its consequences have not been dealt with properly by the company.

The investigation process missed its original time frame (although by only a few weeks), and the appeals process was made difficult where he was repeatedly ignored, and meetings and communication responses were drawn out or delayed unnecessarily. There was a delay of eleven weeks in getting the appeal and only then because of his pursuit of the matter.

The complainant says he has suffered discomfort, stress, reduced productivity, and his dignity has been diminished by the whole affair.

The Company is a private limited company and is a subsidiary within a wider group of companies, the ultimate parent company of which, based in the US. The respondent group is a provider of digital and network management solutions to a global market.

The respondent is committed to creating and promoting a positive work environment where everyone is treated fairly and with respect. The company does not accept any form of bullying in the Workplace and takes all reports / complaints of such inappropriate behaviour very seriously and has robust policies and procedures providing a detailed framework to facilitate employees reporting concerns with confidence and which allow for matters to be investigated thoroughly.

The company has a comprehensive compliance training program and releases annual mandatory trainings to all employees. The group retains a Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) who has overall responsibility for the oversight and administration of corporate governance policies, fostering a culture that integrates compliance and ethics into business processes and practices, and maintaining and monitoring a system for reporting and investigating potential compliance and ethics concerns.

The company believes that it has taken all reasonable steps to put in place the necessary safeguards to protect employees from unacceptable behaviour and was disappointed to receive a report of bullying in the workplace, the subject of this complaint. We regret the upset that this matter caused our employee, and we are grateful that he had confidence in our policies and procedures to share his experiences and allowed us to take the necessary action.

The respondent’s ‘Diversity, Inclusion and Harassment Prevention Policy’ was submitted, and it notes a commitment by the Company to preventing inappropriate behaviour; (i) the standards of behaviour that are expected by employees in the workplace and (ii) the type of behaviour that is considered bullying.

Further, it provides a policy of prohibition against retaliation and defines a clear framework for raising concerns confidentially for the effective management of such issues. The respondent publishes all its policies on its intranet site which is accessible by all employees and all policies are reviewed annually. It might be noted that although this Policy was in force and effect at the time of the report by the Employee and accordingly was applicable to the facts of this complaint, it has subsequently been updated as part of the annual review process and the updated policy is attached hereto as Exhibit B for completeness.

Further to the availability of the Policy, the Company provided the employee with the Employee Handbook attached hereto as Exhibit C and was referred to the Grievance Procedures at section 6 therein. The Company also have a detailed Code of Ethics and Business Conduct attached hereto as Exhibit D. This Code is the foundation underpinning how the Company does business. We refer to sections 11 and 12 thereof which deal with Diversity, Inclusion and Harassment Prevention and Health and Safety respectively.

The company has a compliance training program with annual cadence which includes separate trainings on Harassment and Bullying in the Workplace. Having regard to the latter, employees who successfully complete this course are expected take away (i) an understanding of what bullying is and who can be a perpetrator of such inappropriate behaviour (ii) an ability to use the proper techniques to document and help stop such behaviour and (iii) the insight to recognise if the employee themselves is bullying and if so, why they should stop such behaviour immediately.

Employees are strongly encouraged to raise concerns in matters of undesirable conduct and the Company has a number of forums within which to do so; for example, a concern may be raised by providing a written or verbal report to their direct supervisor, any member of the Senior Leadership Team, a Human Resources Business Partner, and/ or directly to the CCO. The Company also has an online portal, a link to which can be found in our Code of Conduct, and as a matter of standard practice, the company restates the details for both the CCO and the online portal each and every time it rolls out compliance trainings.

The company operates and Employee Assistance Program which offers employees and their family members access to licensed counsellors to help manage stress, improve relationships at home or work, provided financial advice and legal advice. These services are available and free to all our employees. Our Employee in this matter was advised of the availability of this service to him. The Company also has a wellness series of trainings and information sessions which all employees can access. Since 2021, we have offered over 250 wellness sessions for the Global Team.

We refer to the Investigation Terms of Reference (submitted), the provision of which is consistent with government’s guidance in the Code of Practice for Employers and Employees on the Prevention and Resolution of Bullying at Work and sets out the procedure to be undertaken during the investigative process. This document was provided by the Company and the terms agreed to by the Employee.

Regarding the ‘Formal Compliant of Bullying / Harassment in the Workplace’ dated August 27th, 2021. we note that the complainant refers to five specific examples of behaviour occurring between the period of 2017 and 2021. As soon as the company became aware of the issue following the report by the Employee in August 2021, without delay, it commenced appropriate procedures in accordance with its policies.

During initial interactions with Senior Manager and Global HR Business Partner, formal and informal approaches were discussed, and a formal route was decided upon by the complainant. Accordingly, the company proceeded in line with the formal process set forth in the Investigation Terms of Reference and as documented in the Investigation Summary (submitted).

Upon conclusion of the investigation process, an Investigation Report was prepared, noting a finding that “Based on the information gathered during the investigation process for the above claim, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support the claim of Hostile Work Environment which is a violation of our company’s Workplace Code of Ethics and Business Conduct”.

The employee who was the subject of the complaint, had declined to participate in the investigation process, and because she resigned from her position in the Company prior to the commencement of the investigation process, no disciplinary action was determined. Notwithstanding, the investigation was brought to a conclusion in every respect having regard to the circumstances. The Company communicated the outcome to the complainant by email dated 19 October 2021.

The Employee escalated this matter to the then acting Chief of Human Resources. The documentation submitted was reviewed by him and discussed with the complainant. No further action was determined as a result.

The respondent submits that it has demonstrated its commitment to managing the risk of workplace bulling by highlighting activities that have been or will be undertaken to resolve workplace bullying.

It also submits that it has in good faith used best efforts to be a transparent, effective, sensitive, and supportive employer to the complainant. After the report of workplace bullying was resolved, follow-ups were made to check on his health and safety, through regular meetings with our Human Resources Team and a Senior Manager, and the offer of professional counselling sessions.

The complainant is and continues to be a valued member of the company’s staff. In discussion with the CCO in January 2022, he was asked if there was anything the Company could have done better. He replied that there was not, however added he believed policies could be more accessible (see above, the Company makes its policies available on its intranet). Further to the feedback we sought from the Employee, the Company would be more than willing to consider changes to its policies the WRC may recommend as a result of the adjudication.

The Company respectfully rejects the complaint against it and trusts that the adjudication of this matter on the 7th of March shall be beneficial to both parties.

The facts of the matter are well set out above, and as can be seen, while the respondent did act on foot of the complainant’s raising the issue, he felt a degree of frustration at the outcome.

Nonetheless, as the hearing progressed it was clear that there was good will on both sides.

For example, it is rare to see in any submission the sentence which appeared at the end of that of the respondent to the effect that while ‘respectfully’ seeking a rejection of the complaint against it, it ‘trusts that the adjudication of this matter on the 7th of March shall be beneficial to both parties’.

The is a good basis to approach any form of dispute resolution.

In the event, and thanks to the commendable attitudes shown by both sides this is how it turned out.

At the hearing, both parties agreed to engage in a form of an amicable dispute resolution process aimed at producing a ‘Statement of Resolution’ and they succeeded in doing so.

This is how workplace dispute resolution works best at the level of the workplace and between the primary parties to the particular conflict. Is this not what a workplace relations body such as the WRC should always strive to facilitate where it has the latitude provided by the Industrial Relations Act, in particular.

I commend both parties for their positive approach to resolving this problem and endorse the text of the ‘Statement of Resolution’ and recommend that this dispose of the matter.

I endorse the text of the ‘Statement of Resolution’ and recommend that this dispose of complaint CA-00051042-001.

Amicable resolution, Industrial Relations.