Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

An Agency provided Grade 3 Clerical Officer

National Health Body -Primary Care Office

Representatives

  Self-Represented

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-55698

13/07/2021

The Worker alleged that she was systematically bullied and Harassed by the Office Manager Mr. B throughout her period of employment. She seeks redress for this behaviour against her.

The Employment began on the 18th October 2019 and ended on the 16th January 2021.

The rate of pay was the Grade 3 Clerical officer scale.

A detailed Oral testimony was given by the Worker supported by a lengthy Written submission. She was cross examined by the Employer Representative.

The Worker was placed by the Agency, xxxxx xxxxx, following a Health Body Interview, in the Primary Care Office for the Midlands. She reported to Mr B, the Office Manager. The Office was exceptionally busy as it was a very Front-Line part of the Health Body Covid response.

From the start it was clear that Mr B regarded Agency personnel as enjoying /being entitled to lesser standards of employment when compared to Permanent Staff.

The Worker gave evidence, she alleged, of a series of issues with Mr B. References were constantly being made to the “Temporary” status of the Worker. A demeaning system of “Stars” at Work was used. Her hours were completely unpredictable, even allowing for Covid exceptions. She alleged that Mr B was regularly chasing her for work targets that he was constantly changing.

The Worker was called upon to work well above her Grade. She facilitated the Regional Health Forum (a very public and Political Forum involving local Politicians) for the Head of Primary Care, Mr JR. This would normally have been at least a Grade V or above job for a Permanent. In was recognised that she had performed very well in this role. She alleged that Mr B had not made any allowances for this in her normal duties/workload and pursued her for other work that she had to delay.

The major issue was the sending of Work-Related Text Messages to her Mobile Phone at 02.48 on a Saturday morning. This was symptomatic of his approach.

All attempts to address her issues had fallen on very deaf, Local management, ears at Staff meetings. She alleged that she had been unofficially told that her prospects of securing a Permanent Role would not be improved by constantly raising issues of complaint.

Eventually in December 2020 she had to take Stress Leave and resigned in January 2021.

On questioning regarding the use of National Body Procedures such as Dignity at Work she stated that as an Agency Worker, hopeful of maybe getting a Permanent Role, she was simply afraid of the “negative consequences” that would attach to her in the Health Body.

She did acknowledge that Mr JR, the Head of Primary Care, had listened sympathetically to her concerns on the 15th December 2020 but she had heard nothing further from him.

The Hirer, the Health Body, stated in Oral testimony, that the Worker had been engaged on the Standard Terms and Conditions.

The Office was Front Line Covid, and many accepted “historic” routines had to be set aside to simply cope with the workloads.

The Worker had delivered a very good work performance and the Head of Primary care was completely aware of this. Her performance with the Regional Health Forum had been exceptional.  She had experienced on going difficulties with the Office Manager, late night texting to her private mobile on Office matters being an exceptional example.

The Head of Primary Care had become aware of these issues (December 15th, 2020) and was looking into them. However, the Worker resigned (claim of Constructive Dismissal) before he had time to take matters further.

It was not accepted that the Worker was intimidated by the Manager to such a degree that she was “afraid” to lodge a proper Grievance or Dignity at Work Complaint.

She had secured another employment and resigned over Christmas 2020

The matters in this dispute (under different Employment Rights Legislation) were the subject of Adjudication xxxxx and Adj xxxxx.

A further IR Recommendation in this case would simply be additional.

It is worth noting that in the above Adjudications all evidence was given under Sworn Oath.

The only Recommendation that can be made is that the Health Body in their induction and training of Agency Staff make it clear that all Employment and Personal Rights Policies apply equally to Agency Staff as per the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act,2012.

In this case the Worker and her Agency colleagues appear to have believed and or were possibly led to believe, by certain Local Managers, that normal redress mechanism such as the Dignity at Work Policy and Anti Bullying Policies did not apply to Agency Staff.

This is an oversight that could be addressed in future Induction Training.

Bullying and Harassment, Agency Staff/Permanent Staff