Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

An Apprentice

An Equipment Hire Company

Representatives

  Self-Represented

Gareth Kyne of Gareth Kyne HR

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 - 00000408

22/06/2022

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

IR - SC - 00000409

22/06/2022

 The first Dispute (IR- SC – 00000408) concerns allegations that the Employer failed to implement proper Bullying and Harassment (B&H) Procedures and investigate properly B&H allegations made by the Worker.

Secondly (IR- SC – 00000409) the Worker also felt that he had a legitimate Trade Dispute concerning his rate of pay particularly vis a via the rates paid to other Apprentices at the same Work Site.

The employment began on the 20th May 2020 and ended on the 8th September 2022.

The rate of pay was stated by the Worker to be, (at the date of the WRC referral) €470.42 for a 42.5-hour week.

The Worker, who was Self-Represented , made an Oral Submission supported by copy correspondence from the Employer.  Cross examination of Respondent witnesses took place.

1:1        The first Dispute (IR- SC – 00000408) concerns allegations that the Employer failed to implement proper Bullying and Harassment Procedures and investigate properly B&H allegations made by the Worker.

The Worker made numerous attempts to have a Pay Dispute resolved with the Employer. This proved to be of no avail. The Line Manager Mr K got very irritable and aggressive toward the Worker.

In addition, a number of Safety issue shad arisen in May and June regarding the road worthiness of various Trucks especially a Volvo. The Worker felt that his legitimate views as a senior Apprentice were ignored, and he was made feel that any defects on the Volvo Truck were due to his alleged “faulty workmanship”.

The Worker had contacted the Parent UK Company, HR Dept, to raise the Bullying issue but it had proved pointless.

In summary the Worker felt that he had been repeatedly Bullied by Manager, Mr K, and no Management action had been taken even though at a meeting on the 9th June he had clearly raised the issue in the presence of the Safety Officer, Mr M.

1:2       The Second Dispute (IR- SC – 00000409) concerns a long running dispute with the Employer concerning the Apprentice Rate of Pay the Worker felt he should have been on.

Numerous requests and discussions took place, primarily with Mr K but to no avail. The key issue was that two other Apprentices were on higher rates of pay and the suggestion that this was linked to them being on different points on the Apprentice Scales was not valid. The Worker was completely frustrated with what he felt was the total “Run Around” he was constantly getting. The assistance of the WRC had been requested as a last resort.

The Employer was professionally represented by Kyne HR and oral evidence was given by Manager Mr K. A full written submission was submitted. Cross Examination of the Worker took place.

2:1        First Dispute (IR- SC – 00000408) Bullying and Harassment

The real issue in this case was the Pay complaint from the Worker. Not getting the desired answer was not equivalent to a Bullying situation. Regarding the Volvo Truck issues these were legitimate vehicle maintenance and repair issues that higher Managers were responsible for. If they were of the view that a Vehicle was safe, they were the ultimate authority.

The Worker had raised issues with the UK Parent HR but in the final analysis they were related to the Pay situation.

It was important to note that the Worker had never formally raised any Bullying or Harassment Compliant under accepted Procedures at either the Irish Operation or with the UK Parent.

2:2        Second Dispute (IR- SC – 00000409)    Trade Dispute

The Employer was of the view that as the Dispute had been referred to the WRC on the 22nd of June 2022 and the employment had ended on the 8th September 2022, a valid Trade Dispute no longer existed at the date of the Hearing on the 10th March 2023.

Irrespective of this, a valid disagreement on a Wage rate between a Worker and an Employer had been perfectly legitimate and as no statutory rules had been broken (Minimum Wage or SEO rates) the issue was now in the past as the employment relationship was long finished.

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

3:1        First Dispute (IR- SC – 00000408) Bullying and Harassment

Having listened to the Oral testimony from the Worker and from his Manager, Mr K, it was clear that this was a Pay Dispute. The Worker may have felt that the negative responses were in effect Bullying but it is necessary to look at the exact definitions to assist us here.

Bullying and Harassment are defined in the WRC/HSA Code of Practice for Employers and Employees on the Prevention and Resolution of Bullying at Work Code of Practice as follows.

For the purposes of this Code, bullying in the workplace is defined (Section 2:2) as follows:

 “Workplace bullying is repeated inappropriate behaviour, direct or indirect, whether verbal, physical or otherwise, conducted by one or more persons against another or others, at the place of work and/or in the course of employment, which could be reasonably regarded as undermining the individual’s right to dignity at work

2. An isolated incident of the behaviour described in this definition may be an affront to dignity at work, but, as a once off incident, is not considered to be bullying”

The disagreements with Mr K regarding the Apprentice Rates of Pay and the Volvo Truck roadworthiness issues were hard, from an Adjudication viewpoint, to fit into the above definition.

The issue relating to different rates being paid to other Apprentices seemed to have developed into quite an interpersonal dispute. Better communications and acceptance by both sides of stated facts would have helped. At the end of the day this was a pay dispute.

The Worker stated that he was not seeking any Financial compensation but that the Employer would treat future Apprentices in a better fashion than, he alleged, he had been treated.

3:2        Second Dispute (IR- SC – 00000409)    Trade Dispute

It is true to say, in the Employers favour, that any Trade Dispute between the Parties is now well in the past. However, this does not preclude the Adjudicator, acting under the Industrial relations Act,1969, from expressing a view or making a Recommendation.

Bullying and Harassment, Definition of Trade Dispute