Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

An Employee

A Veterinary Practice

Representatives

  Self-represented

 Alan Wilkie, Wilkie & Flanagan LLP

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 - 00000568

18/08/2022

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The workers case concerns the bullying and harassment procedures of the employer.  He submitted that he was never presented with any procedures regarding bullying and harassment.  He submitted that he made a compliant in writing and emailed it to his employer and that the complaint was never dealt with.

Although he did not submit a copy of the complaint made to the employer, he indicated that the contents of the letter were the same as transmitted to the WRC in the initial notification of his dispute.

His submission included a large number of accusations regarding the behaviour of the employer including verbal abuse, physical violence and drunken behaviour directed towards the worker and colleagues.

The worker indicated that he did not receive payslips nor a contract of employment. 

The worker confirmed that he was ‘sacked’ in August 2022 and resigned in October 2022.  Under cross examination he indicated that the employment relationship turned sour after he was asked to what he termed commit fraud.

As a preliminary matter, the employer submitted that the company, as named, did not exist and accordingly it was objecting as this dispute was not a proper referral.  The employer confirmed that the company is a limited company

The employer submitted that the employment relationship went downhill in July 2021 following a request to the worker to engage more directly with farms.  This change was aimed at increasing the efficient of the practice. 

The director of the company stated that the worker was sent his payslips on a monthly basis but that this was carried out by a named person in the office.  He also stated that he was convinced that contracts were handed out to all staff but confirmed that he wasn’t sure.

The employer stated that the issue of bullying and harassment procedures was being dealt with by the worker who had been sent to a conference where an employer representative organisation handed out booklets with the bullying and harassment procedures.

The employer confirmed that the worker made a complaint and further confirmed that he did not respond to it on the basis that he found it offensive.  He stated that he ‘turned his back on it’ because of the allegations it contained about the director himself.

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

In preliminary submissions the representative for the employer submitted that the name of the company was not cited correctly and accordingly, the reference under the Industrial Relations Act was not made correctly.  During the evidence given by the parties the worker claimed that he was never given payslips nor contract.  The evidence of his employer was that he received his payslips “presumably on a monthly basis” and that he was “convinced that contracts were handed out to staff”, but he “was not sure”.

The payslip exhibited at the hearing indicated that the worker was paid via a weekly payroll run and no employment contract was submitted.  The email address of the employer, confirmed by the director who indicated he had received the complaint makes no reference to the limited nature of the company.  The phone book and internet websites refer to the business without reference to its limited nature and appears to trade without reference to its limited corporate nature.  On the basis of the foregoing, I am not satisfied that the worker was aware of the full title of the company and in all the circumstances I am giving the worker the benefit of the doubt.  I accept that the employer was cited correctly in so far as he was aware of the name of his employer.

The worker made a complaint that his bully and harassment complaint was not dealt with adequately or at all.  The employer confirmed that this was the case. 

The worker’s submission included a large number of accusations regarding the behaviour of the employer including verbal abuse, physical violence and drunken behaviour directed towards the worker and colleagues, most of which are beyond the scope of the WRC under this legislation.

There is a conflict of evidence as to whether there were any bullying and harassment procedures in place and whether a copy of the procedures was available to all staff.  What is agreed by the parties is that the worker made a complaint, and that the employer did not consider the complaint and took no action in relation to the complaint.

Industrial Relations Act – Bullying and Harassment procedures – complaint filed, no action taken – recommend compensation – circulate bullying and harassment procedures.