Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Security Officer

A Security Firm

Representatives

Branigan and Matthews Solicitors

Warren Parkes Solicitors

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 - 00001173

13/03/2023

The Worker commenced employment with the Employer in November 2019 as a security officer.  He works 48 hours per week and is paid €14.50 per hour.

The dispute referred to the Commission was in respect of the Employer’s bullying and harassment procedures.

The Worker remains in the Employer’s employment.

The written submission on behalf of the Worker outlined inappropriate behaviour allegedly experienced by the Worker over a period of time and during his employment by a work colleague and the Employer, which undermined the Worker’s dignity at work and his integrity and respect.   

The Employer refused and neglected to adequately deal with the matter despite the Worker making a formal complaint.

At a meeting arranged by the Employer’s general manager, the work colleague was told to cease the behaviour and apologise to the Worker.  The meeting took approximately one minute, and the work colleague was promoted shortly afterwards. 

The Employer objected to the investigation of this dispute.

It was submitted that the Employer had not received the Commission’s notification of the dispute, and therefore could not exercise its legal right to object to an investigation of the dispute.  The Worker had provided the Commission with an incorrect address and legal title for the Employer meaning that the Employer could not object within the 21-day timeframe.   

Without prejudice to its objection, the Employer maintained that it had no idea the Worker was dissatisfied with how it had addressed his complaint.  It dealt with the Worker’s complaint in accordance with best practice; it was dealt with quickly and the outcome of a meeting between the Worker and a work colleague was satisfactory to all parties.  There was no dissatisfaction expressed by the Worker after the meeting.  The Worker’s complaint was closed off in circumstances where the Worker had accepted his colleague’s apology.    

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

By correspondence dated 10 May 2023, the Commission issued notification to the Employer of the dispute referred, which included information on the right to object to an investigation of the dispute by an Adjudication Officer under section 36(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990.  This notification issued to the address provided by the Worker for the Employer on the complaint form.

The Employer submitted that its head office had moved in January 2023 from the unit in the building to which the Commission’s correspondence dated 10 May 2023 was addressed, to two other units in the same building and at the same address. 

I note that the address inserted by the Worker on the complaint form, and to which the Commission’s correspondence issued, is the address detailed for the Employer in the Worker’s contract of employment.  I further note that the Employer’s name in the contract is not the legal title of the Employer, in respect of which the Employer’s objection is grounded in part. 

My jurisdiction to investigate and make a recommendation to the parties to a trade dispute is set out in section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969.  Section 13(3)(b) provides that I shall not investigate a trade dispute where either the Court has made a recommendation in relation to the dispute or if a party to the dispute notified the Commission in writing that it objects to the dispute being investigated.

Section 36(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 is also relevant in this context:-

“An objection under section 13 (3) (b) (ii) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, by a party to a trade dispute to an investigation of the dispute by a rights commissioner shall be of no effect unless it is notified in writing to the commissioner within three weeks after notice of the reference of the dispute to the commissioner has been sent by post to that party.”

The Commission sent notice of the referral of the dispute on 10 May 2023 to the address for the Employer provided by the Worker; this was the address detailed in the Worker’s contract of employment.  The Employer did not assert that the Worker had been notified or, was aware of the Employer’s change of address or of the Employer’s legal title.  I further note that the Employer contacted the Commission in July 2023 with the name of the appropriate contact person in the Employer organisation in relation to the dispute.  It did not at this point advise the Commission of a different address or raise any issue with how it had received earlier communications from the Commission.  I am satisfied that the Employer did receive earlier communications having regard to an email from the contact person in August 2023 requesting a copy of the original submission complaint as the contact person had mislaid it.    The Employer’s legal representative came on record in August 2023.  The first objection to my investigation of the dispute was made orally by the Employer’s legal representative at the hearing on 19 September 2023. 

On the information before, I am satisfied with the notice of the reference of dispute that was sent by post to the Employer.  There was no written objection to an investigation of the dispute either within the timeframe or at any stage thereafter.

Accordingly, I consider the Employer’s objection to be of no effect and that I have jurisdiction to investigate the dispute referred to me.

I am not satisfied that certain of the alleged inappropriate behaviour which was outlined in the written submission on behalf of the Worker, for example particulars of alleged manipulation of a person’s job, contents and targets, withholding information needed for the Worker to do his job properly and being blamed for matters which are beyond his control, were raised with the Employer at local level. 

It is well established by the Workplace Relations Commission and the Labour Court that they do not intervene in a dispute under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 where internal procedures have been bypassed.

It is common case that the Worker did make a complaint on 5 April 2022 of bullying by a work colleague.  The Employer’s operations director met with the Worker following the Worker’s return to work from a period of sick leave and the Worker informed him of issues concerning a work colleague.  The operations director tasked the general manager to arrange a site meeting between the Worker and the work colleague to sort out the situation.  The Worker maintained that the meeting took place in August 2022.  The general manager could not confirm the date or time of the meeting.  The Worker and Employer differed on the Worker’s position that he had subsequently expressed his dissatisfaction to the operations director on learning of the work colleague’s promotion shortly after the meeting.  No further discussion took place, and the Employer closed the complaint file.

I am of the view that there were shortcomings in how the Employer addressed the Worker’s complaint.  There was no information before me of an anti-bullying policy or procedure for how the Employer deals with complaints of bullying. 

I have had regard to the Code of Practice for Employers and Employees on the Prevention and Resolution of Bullying at Work, its guidance and best practice.  Whilst an informal approach to dealing with complaints of bullying is promoted, it is clear that any complaint about, or awareness of, alleged bullying requires prompt and consistent attention.  I acknowledge there was a period of time when the Worker was unavailable for follow-up on his complaint due to being on sick leave, however the information before me indicates that this was for a 2-week period in April 2022 and that the meeting between the Worker and his work colleague occurred in August 2022.  The parties differed on the outcome of the August 2022 meeting.  A brief written record of the matter, and agreed outcomes, would have resolved this particular issue and could have provided some clarity to the parties in terms of management of the complaint.  I note that it was following the August 2022 meeting that the Worker was taken off the supervisor position on the roster and assigned to front door security and that the work colleague was promoted.  In the circumstances, I accept that the Worker expressed his dissatisfaction with the outcome to the operations director.

Given the delay and lack of clarity in relation to how the Worker’s complaint was dealt with, including any agreed outcome, I recommend in favour of the Worker.

Industrial relations – Bullying procedure