Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

An Employer

Representatives

  Self-Represented

Mason Hayes & Curran

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-00051069-001

09/06/2022

The Worker is a Special Needs Assistant, and he commenced his employment with the Employer on 01/03/2012.   On 09/06/2022 the Worker referred the present dispute within the definition of the Act to the WRC.   In the absence of any objection from the Employer, the matter proceeded to hearing on 27/01/23.  This dispute concerns a claim by the Worker as set out in the WRC complaint form that he had been subjected to bullying and harassment by a teacher in his workplace for approximately ten years and despite raising his concerns with local management (several successive school principals) nothing has been done to address those concerns.

The Worker’s core complaints can best be summarised as falling into two separate groupings.  Those are issues in relation to Teacher 1 and Teacher 2 respectively.  The Worker submits issues in relation to Teacher 1 had been ongoing for approximately ten years and became unbearable.  The Worker submits up until 2021 he had an unblemished sick record, but he found his mental health suffering and he was forced to seek professional help. The Worker was subsequently certified unfit for work due to work related stress for a period of four months.  Having regard to Teacher 1, the Worker alleges degrading insults made in public.  He alleges verbal assaults and damage to his property.  He describes feeling fear and high levels of stress and anxiety throughout.   

The Worker describes a number of incidents from the start of the 2021/2022 school year in his submission relating to Teacher 2.  He alleges that her behaviour was dismissive of him and led to him feeling undermined.  Allegations regarding Teacher 2 were raised by the Worker for the first time in his written submission to the WRC.  The Worker did not raise these issues with the Employer prior to this referral.  

The Worker submitted two written complaints to the Employer on 29/06/2021 and 16/09/2021 respectively regarding Teacher 1. The Worker was contacted on 07/04/2022 by an external Investigator engaged by the Employer to conduct an investigation into the complaints raised by the Worker.  She stated in correspondence to the Worker she would like to meet with him to hear his complaint and any evidence he wished to be considered.  She offered a date of 28/04/2022 at 15.30 and advised the meeting would take place over Zoom or MS Teams.  This date did not suit the Worker and other dates were offered.  However, this meeting never did take place because the Worker emailed the external consultant on 25/04/2022 advising that he would not be engaging with the process.

The same external Investigator was commissioned by the Employer to investigate a series of allegations against Teacher 1 on foot of complaints by a number of staff in the school.   The external Investigator contacted the Worker on 27/06/2022 asking if he would attend a meeting as a witness or potential witness.  The Worker did not agree to a meeting.  The Worker states he tried to contact the external Investigator by phone rather than communicate with her by email as he found it easier to discuss his concerns as opposed to emailing them.  Numerus attempts at a phone conversation followed and said telephone conversation did eventually took place.   The Worker stated he advised the Investigator he was unavailable to make a statement as he was holidays and he needed to spend time with his family and rebuild his life. 

The Worker in his written submission describes matters of a sensitive nature that are not for discussion in this forum.   Accordingly, there is no detail set out here in this summary of the Worker’s case. 

The outcome the Worker is seeking from this hearing is that I recommend that a meeting be arranged with the Board of Management so that he can get to know them.   

The Employer submits at the outset it wishes to approach this matter from a conciliatory perspective.  The Employer does not accept the Board of Management has made no effort to address the Worker’s issues.  The Employer states an investigation was set up to consider the Worker’s complaints set out in his letters of 29/06/21 and 16/09/21.  The investigation process did not progress until early April 2022, at which time the Board of Management understood the Worker was in a position to co-operate with the investigation. 

The Worker had reported sick in mid-September 2021 after submitting the September complaint.  The Employer arranged an occupational health assessment for him with Medmark on or around 19th October 2021.  The Worker was assessed as being unfit for work until 01/11/2021 and was advised by the occupational health doctor to avail of counselling through the EAP services.  It was also recommended that his allegations of workplace problems be addressed in the usual manner through the Board of Management.  The Worker was deemed medically fit to attend any meetings in relation to his allegation of work problems. 

The Worker did not return to work until 17/01/2022 and he submitted a further complaint dated 25/01/2022. 

The Employer submits that the external Investigator provided the Worker with every opportunity to engage in the investigation of his complaints.  The Employer submits, as a matter of fact, the Worker submitted his complaint to the WRC on 09/06/2022 some six weeks after he advised the Investigator he would not be engaging in the investigation process. 

In response to the Worker’s assertion that he had raised complaints with local management over the past ten years, whilst the Employer acknowledges that the Worker may have approached management over the years, the current Principal was only appointed in December 2021 and the former Principal and Vice Principal no longer work at the school.  Furthermore, a review of the Worker’s personnel file does not contain any note or record of complaints raised by him other than his current complaints submitted in June 2021, September 2021, and January 2022.

The Employer submits a number of the issues raised by the Worker as bullying behaviour relate to classroom management issues but is willing to investigate these matters under the Dignity & Respect Policy.

The Employer respectfully submits that the Adjudicator issue a recommendation that the Worker engage in the agreed procedures to deal with such complaints and a recommendation that the Worker meet with the Investigator to have his specific complaints heard.     

CA-00051069-001

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.  I deemed it necessary to make my own inquiries into the dispute during the hearing to establish and understand the facts and to seek clarification on certain matters. 

Having considered all the information presented to me, I find it likely the Worker was subjected to questionable behaviour in terms of his interactions with Teacher 1.  In terms of his interactions with Teacher 2 I am not fully satisfied those interactions are of a similar nature to his interactions with Teacher 1.  I find the Employer has a comprehensive Dignity in the Workplace Policy which I have had sight of and that is the mechanism through which his complaints regarding Teacher 2 should have been progressed. 

The Employer submits the school’s Dignity at Work Policy was updated by the school in mid-2021 and the Employer further submits the Worker was actively involved in the consultation process that led to the revised policy.  Having had sight of said policy it appears to me the comprehensive policy is compliant with S.I. No. 674/2020 Industrial Relations Act 1990 (Code of Practice for Employers and Employees on the Prevention and Resolution of Bullying at Work).

My role as an adjudication officer is to examine how the workplace procedures are utilised and to assess the reasonableness of the outcome.  In the instant case there is no outcome for me to assess as the Worker made a unilateral decision to withdraw from participating in the investigation into his Teacher 1 complaint.  I am satisfied the Employer made every reasonable effort to address the matters raised by the Worker.  Regarding Teacher 2, he completely bypassed the internal procedures and documented his complaints in his submission to the WRC.  The Employer was given no opportunity to resolve these matters.   

Based on my observations during the hearing the Worker undoubtedly loves his job as a Special Needs Assistant.  It is unfortunate that he seems to have got caught up in this alleged cycle of events with Teacher 1 initially and then with Teacher 2.  I find it even more unfortunate he has not availed himself of the procedures put in place by the Employer so that he could canvass his complaints.  I am satisfied the Employer acted in as timely a manner as possible and took swift action to address the Worker’s complaints, given the totality of the circumstances.

I find it perplexing why the Worker withdrew from the investigation underway at the behest of the Employer in April 2022 when he emailed the Investigator on 25/04/2022 that he will not be engaging with the process.  His decision not to engage with the Investigator commissioned by the Employer to address the complaints he had raised is difficult to reconcile with his assertion in his WRC complaint form that no effort had been made by the Employer to address his issues and he felt abandoned and isolated.  To withdraw from the investigation is not just unreasonable, it simply did not make sense to me considering his assertions the Employer did not address his complaints, as by opting out of the process he in fact denied the Employer the opportunity to do so. 

In attempting to better understand the background to this I asked the Worker why he refused to participate in the process in order to have his complaints heard.  He stated he would have preferred a face-to-face meeting and he did not want any meetings to encroach on his holiday time spent with family.  I understand his aversion to Zoom, and I also understand why he would not want to participate in school related meetings during his annual leave. 

Nonetheless, I find it quite unreasonable that the Worker withdrew from the process without first articulating his reasons for withdrawing from participation to the Employer who had gone to the expense of commissioning an external consultant to investigate his complaints.   I am satisfied the Employer would have arranged, through the Investigator, that he be facilitated with face-to-face meetings.  I am also satisfied that meetings would have been scheduled at a time that would suit the Worker as I have not observed anything during the hearing to lead me to infer other than the Employer would do everything possible to facilitate the Worker in resolving the matters he had raised.   

The Worker made much of the fact that, in his view, the Employer did not make any effort to address his complaints or to communicate with him or to address his issues.  When I sought further details on his firmly held view in this regard during the hearing the Worker referred to numerous “chats” he had with local management about his various issues during the years and he stated nothing was ever done after these chats.  While exploring this further with the Worker during the hearing, it transpires the Worker believed that a “chat” in the tearoom or around the photocopier or wherever with the school principal was a trigger that would activate the Dignity in the Workplace Policy or indeed the Grievance Procedure.  It is regrettable that the Worker did not familiarise himself with the aforesaid policies and procedures as he would have been disabused of the notion that an informal “chat” constituted the formal raising of an issue or indeed the invocation of any of the aforesaid policies and procedures. 

I find many of the issues raised by the Worker regarding Teacher 2 are more akin to what would consider to be operational matters or to what would be termed classroom management matters in an educational setting.  Notwithstanding, I urge the Worker to utilise the internal procedures to have these matters investigated.

I find I am unable to recommend that which the Worker sought by way of an outcome on the day of the hearing.  The Worker stated he would like to meet the Board of Management and get to know them.  However, it is not within my remit to make a recommendation to the Employer relating to school governance matters.

Internal procedures have not been exhausted in the within case.  However, I note the commitment given by the Employer that it is their wish to approach this dispute from a conciliatory perspective.  I note the Worker is well able to articulate his position and the nature of his complaints.  I am satisfied he would benefit greatly from the validation he may achieve in ventilating his specific complaints to an independent Investigator.  This may enable him to move on from this dispute and to experience a return to the enjoyment of working in a job he clearly loves.   Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons in this instance I make a recommendation strictly pertaining only to the facts of this dispute and in the circumstances of this case.  

Internal procedures bypassed; unique facts and circumstances;