Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Technical Support Analyst              .

Business support services

Representatives

  Self-represented.

IBEC

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

02/07/2021

The worker has presented a dispute that she was punished for having identified problems within the IT systems and services within the company and was wrongly put through a disciplinary process.

She commenced as an IT Technical Support Analyst with the employer in 2014.

She submitted her dispute to the WRC on 2/7/2021.

The worker was employed as a technical support analyst assigned to resolve remote users ‘/ clients’ IT issues.

She experienced consistent difficulties with software and her computer, difficulties which multiplied during Covid -19, when working from home deprived her of ready, onsite access to coaches who could assist her. The difficulties with software and her computer prevented her from making and receiving calls from customers or providing them with the necessary assistance.

She believes that there was online tampering with her computer by unidentifiable, internal company personnel which hindered her from performing her duties. She asked the WRC to investigate the possibility of such sabotage which she believes was designed to enable complaints to be made against her and for these complaints to culminate in subjecting her to disciplinary proceedings, based on biased and unfair conclusions. In May 2021 she was subject to disciplinary proceedings which resulted in her being issued with a final written warning. The worker also states that the company’s disciplinary process was misused and points to the option of initiating the procedure at an earlier stage of the process. She did appeal that sanction, but her appeal was not upheld.

Rather than being helped with the IT issues, she was encouraged to raise a grievance about minor issues. She never raised a grievance about her problems with IT systems.

She asks for an investigation into these complaints.

The employer denies any improper or unfair behaviour on their part.

The worker suffered an excessive level of computer malfunctions and as a result was unable to deal with calls, her responses to customer requests were not up to the company’s standards and she developed conflictual relationships with colleagues and line managers.

The company initiated an investigation under their disciplinary code into breaches of multiple policies in May 2021. During the course of this investigation, the company invited the worker to provide reasons for these breaches. While not accepting that they were breaches, the worker identified the ‘scrambling’ of her IT systems, and the failure of the employer to properly investigate the IT dysfunction as the major, if not exclusive, factor for the breaches of policy.

However, while voicing her suspicions about the cause of the IT dysfunction, she never activated the grievance procedure and hence, the company was unable to investigate her issues.

The disciplinary process was conducted correctly. The appeal against the issuance of a final written warning was not upheld.

The worker and all in her section were made redundant in December 2021.

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

The worker’s signed contract provides for a grievance procedure to be activated in the event of difficult relationships, concerns about her work or the working environment.

 The worker has asked the WRC to undertake an investigation into her contention that unauthorised interference in her, personal IT system generated the malfunctioning in her system.

The worker misunderstands the function of the WRC. It is the complainant’s responsibility to activate a procedure which could, potentially, lead to a forensic examination of her complaints and a resolution, and if that is improperly conducted, a referral to the WRC is possible.

The worker also asserts that the disciplinary procedure was misused in that the employer activated it at stage 3 rather than at a lower level. But the procedure allows for that. I acknowledged that such an experience is difficult for an employee. The worker ’s appeal against the issuance of a final written warning was not upheld. She did not point to any other defects in the employer’s use of the procedure. The worker did complain of bullying behaviour by the persons executing the disciplinary procedure but did not substantiate these claims.

It is unfortunate that the worker was so troubled and mistrustful during the course of her employment.

The worker is no longer with the company. I am unable to find any misuse of the disciplinary

procedure.

I recommend that the employer re-offers the services of the EAP to the worker, and if no longer available, the equivalent number of sessions with a comparable provider on the basis of her written confirmation to agree to avail of same.

Failure to use the GP. Unsubstantiated complaints.