Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

An Employer

Representatives

  N/A

Ms. Niamh Daly, Ibec

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00000535

07/08/2022

On 12 April 2021, the Worker commenced employment with the Employer as a Senior Executive, starting on a base salary of €34,000 per annum. The Worker has numerous complaints against the Employer and believes that she has been subjected to a campaign of bullying and harassment over the course of several months. The Worker made bullying and harassment complaints against two different line managers and against Human Resources (“HR”) personnel.  The Worker outlined that she has suffered considerable stress. On 7 August 2022, the Worker submitted her Complaint Form to the Workplace Relations Commission (the “WRC”).

At the outset of the Hearing, the Worker indicated that she wanted to pursue her numerous complaints through the courts. I explained clearly to the Worker that, as per her Complaint Form, this matter concerned an industrial relations dispute relating to bullying and harassment procedures. The Hearing would therefore focus on this issue. I further explained to the Worker that this matter does not concern an employment rights complaint and the application of the law thereto. I explained that an industrial relations dispute involves the investigation of a trade dispute between a worker and an employer to find a fair basis for resolving a dispute. The Worker understood and was satisfied to proceed on this basis.

The Worker provided many documents in advance of the Hearing.

The Worker outlined that she commenced work on 12 April 2021. She had numerous complaints against the Employer. The Worker took issue with inter alia her I.T. access, logging her hours, her pay and her sick pay.  She also outlined that she has been subject to a campaign of bullying and harassment over the course of several months – more specifically by two different line managers and HR personnel.

The Worker raised a bullying and harassment complaint against her (first) Line Manager on 8 June 2021. The Worker alleged that her first Line Manager came to her home, drank alcohol and sent her numerous messages. The Worker reported this behaviour to HR. An investigation took place. The Worker was moved to a new team with a new (second) Line Manager. On 11 October 2021, the first Line Manager sent a message to a work group, in which she referred to the Worker’s complaint against her. The Worker was distressed, reported the matter to the Employer and subsequently took sick leave from 12 October 2021 until 10 January 2022. The Worker outlined that she was dissatisfied with the Employer’s response and felt that the Employer did not protect her. The Worker outlined that her first Team Leader has since left the Employer.

The Worker raised a bullying and harassment complaint against her second Line Manager on 1 September 2022. The Worker did not have any issues with her second Line Manager until she learned from a colleague that her second Line Manager allegedly sought her home address. The Worker said that she panicked and emailed HR, outlining her belief that her safety was in jeopardy. The Worker took issue with HR contacting her second Line Manager about her complaint. She believed that HR was attributing blame to her. She subsequently refused to have anything further to do with her second Line Manager. The Worker was moved to a new team with a new (third) Line Manager in January 2023.

The Worker also raised bullying and harassment complaints against HR personnel. She believes that the Employer is trying to force her to leave. She outlined that unless she spams HR with emails, she will not receive a reply. She outlined that, to date, she has sent approximately 1,000 emails to HR concerning her complaints. She has told HR that the situation is causing her considerable stress.

When asked about the procedures that she had followed, the Worker said that she did not have a copy of the Employer’s Grievance Policy. She said that did not recall that the Employer’s Grievance Procedure was referred to in her Contract of Employment. She said that she did not have the necessary I.T. access to review the Employer’s policies on the Employer’s internal website. The Worker outlined that HR had not informed her that she had not followed the correct procedure.

The Employer provided submissions in advance of and during the Hearing.

The Employer refuted the Worker’s allegations in their entirety.

The Employer submitted that it is not for an adjudication officer to make specific findings as to what the outcome of an internal investigation should be, but rather to assess whether the process conformed to the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (S.I. No. 146/2000).

The Employer outlined that it carried out on investigation following receipt of the Worker’s complaint against her first Line Manager, dated 8 June 2021. The Employer emailed the Worker about the investigation outcome on 28 July 2021. The investigation outcome was also discussed with the Worker on 17 August 2021. During this discussion, the Employer noted that the Worker confirmed that she was satisfied with the outcome and process followed.

The Employer outlined that after receiving the Worker’s complaint concerning the first Line Manager’s message to a work group on 11 October 2021, it intended to commence a formal investigation. However, the first Line Manager went on certified sick leave and subsequently left the Employer in January 2022. As a result, the investigation did not take place.

The Employer understood that the Worker was distressed by the event and went on sick leave. The Employer outlined that it usually paid a maximum of five days’ sick leave. In the circumstances, it paid the Worker full sick pay for a period of six weeks between 12 October 2021 and 10 January 2022. On 16 November 2021, the Employer emailed the Worker with details of the Employee Assistance Programme. On 18 November 2021, the Employer emailed the Worker to offer mediation to resolve the matter informally. In the same email, the Employer also referred to the Grievance Policy and suggested that the Worker could take the formal approach if she wished. Finally, the Employer also explained that an investigation could not be completed until the Occupational Health Doctor deemed the Worker fit to engage with the formal grievance process. On 23 November 2021, the Employer emailed the Worker, repeating that the formal grievance process was open to her. The Employer outlined that the Worker: refused to engage in mediation; did not see the Occupational Health Doctor; and did not invoke the formal grievance procedure.

The Employer outlined that the Worker’s complaint against her second Line Manager, dated 1 September 2022, did not meet the definition of bullying and harassment for the purposes of the Code of Practice for Employers and Employees on the Prevention and Resolution of Bullying at Work. The Employer outlined that the second Line Manager explained that she had sought the Worker’s telephone number to contact her but had never sought her home address. The Employer outlined that this was explained to the Worker who refused to engage further with her second Line Manager. The Worker was moved to a new team with a new (third) Line Manager in January 2023.

The Employer outlined that in December 2022, the Worker emailed the Employer to “open an official complain(t)” against HR personnel. In an email dated 26 December 2022, the Employer provided the Worker with a link to the complaint procedure concerning HR personnel.

The Employer outlined that the Worker’s Contract of Employment dated March 2021 referred to its Grievance Procedure. The Employer further outlined that its Grievance Policy and Dignity at Work Policy are available for review on the Employer’s internal website. The Employer accepted that the Worker had some I.T. access difficulties, however the Employer outlined that they were intermittent and have been resolved.

The Employer outlined that, at all times, it has sought to engage with the Worker and resolve payroll and I.T. issues. In summary, the Employer outlined that the Worker has: a third Line Manager; received six weeks of full sick pay; and been offered use of the Employee Assistance Programme and mediation. The Employer outlined that, in the circumstances, it believes that it has acted fairly and reasonably. The Employer outlined that it is at a loss as to what else can be done.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the Parties.

It is well established that, before submitting a grievance about any matter to the WRC, an employee must exhaust the internal procedures at their workplace.  In Gregory Geoghegan t/a TAPS v. A Worker, INT1014, the Labour Court held:

“The Court is not prepared to insert itself into the procedural process in a situation where the dispute procedures have been bypassed.”

I note that the Employer’s Grievance Procedure was referred to in the Worker’s Contract of Employment dated March 2021. I also note that the Employer’s Grievance Policy and Dignity at Work Policy were accessible on the Employer’s internal website. The Worker did not appeal the findings of the internal investigation conducted by the Employer, about which she was informed on 28 July 2021 and 17 August 2021. Further, she did not invoke the formal grievance process concerning her other complaints, despite being informed that she could do so by the Employer, on 18 November 2021 and 23 November 2021. As the internal procedures have not been exhausted, I cannot insert myself into the procedural process. In the circumstances, the Worker’s dispute is without merit and is not well founded.

Industrial Relations Act, section 13, Grievance procedure, Bullying and harassment.