ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: ADJ -00046987
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | Operative | Tool and engineering company |
Representatives | Self-represented | A firm of solicitors. |
Dispute(s):
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 |
| 03/09/2021 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:
Date of Hearing: 28/3/2023.
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended)following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute.
Background:
The worker has submitted a complaint that he was harassed and bullied by his employer for a period of a year. He was employed as an operative in the respondent’s retail and service provider company since 1/10/2018. He submitted his dispute to the WRC on 3 September 2021. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The worker states that he experienced ongoing demeaning and abusive behaviour by the employer from May 2020 – June 2021 designed to get him to leave the company. This took the form of excessive scrutiny by the employer, intimidation and asking him if he was stupid. He stated that he has little expectation of an outcome that will help him as he is no longer with the company. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The employer states that the complaint should not be heard as the worker failed to invoke the grievance procedure or anti- bullying procedure against the employer which is a pre-condition for a referral to the WRC. That being the case, and with no decision referred, he is unable to call on the services of the WRC without having taken those first steps himself. Without prejudice to that position, the employer denies that they ever told him he was stupid or asked him repeatedly what he was doing or intimidated him as asserted by the worker. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. It is correct that there is a requirement to exhaust all internal workplace procedures before submitting a complaint to the WRC. The worker did not use the procedures. He states that he was unaware of the procedures which he could have used to attempt to remedy the situation. The employer states that they were posted on a staff notice board. The worker made no complaints to the employer until June 2021 when he was called a thief and submitted his resignation. At that point, if not beforehand- as employees should be provided with such procedures as of right and not just because a crisis arises- he should have been provided with a copy of the procedure which could have examined his complaint. Furthermore, the worker’s unfamiliarity with a procedure which was not provided to him in taking up his employment and was under disclosed during the period June 2020- June 21 acted to inhibit the worker from making a complaint.
In view of all of the circumstances and given that this complaint has been taken under the Industrial Relations Act, I recommend that the employer pay the sum of €1500 to the worker owing to the distress experienced by the worker in a workplace offering little clarity as to how conflicts could be addressed.
|
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I recommend that the employer pay the sum of €1500 to the worker owing to the distress experienced by the worker in a workplace offering little clarity as to how conflicts could be addressed.
Dated: 04 August 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Maire Mulcahy
Key Words:
Under exposure of grievance procedure. |