Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Practice Manager

A Dental Practice

Representatives

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Industrial Relations Act, 1990

CA-00042059-001

19/01/2021

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent in February 1992.  She worked six hours per week and was employed as a Practice Manager. 

In 2008 the then owners of the Respondent dental practice amended the duties of the Complainant to that of bookkeeper and she worked six hours per week.  The practice was then sold in March 2020 to the current Respondent. 

The Complainant continued to hold the role of Practice Manager with primary responsibility for book- keeping within the practice.  Following the acquisition of the dental practice by the Respondent in June 2020 the Respondent recruited a Practice Nurse who was to act as Business Manager and who was engaged to develop the business into the future.  Arising from this appointment disputes arose in relation to crossover of duties and titles between the Complainant and the Respondent that ultimately led to the Complainant resigning her position.  In her complaint form, the Complainant listed the following complaint:

·       CA-00042059-001: Complaint under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 alleging that she was bullied by the Respondent

The Respondent is a dental practice who took over the business in June 2020.  The Respondent denied all allegations, stating that there was no aggressive treatment as alleged.

CA-00042059-001

The Complainant submitted that on the 27thNovember she was asked to fill out a P80 Social Welfare Form for an employee.  She submitted that she informed her colleague that she would not have that information as she was no longer responsible for doing payroll and she submitted that at that time the accounts were being done by the Respondent.  She submitted that she asked the Business Manager to give the form to the Respondent as she would have the relevant information.  She submitted that just before 5pm that evening she was at home, and she received a phone call from the Respondent asking her why she had not filled out the particular form.  She submitted that she advised him that she did not have this information and that he said that she should have got the information required.  She submitted that when she tried to reply he repeated that she should have gotten the information required.

The Complainant submitted that the phone call was followed up with an email at 8:19pm outlining what she should have done and outlining her duties.  The Complainant stated that the Respondent wanted her to confirm by return email that going forward she would accept any such similar requests and agree to perform what reasonably falls within her role with the referenced cooperation to her fellow work colleagues.  She submitted that this email did not reflect the tone or the aggressive way he had spoken to her on the phone call.  She stated that she felt the referenced cooperation with fellow work colleagues implied that in some way she had been rude or abrupt with her colleagues and she stated that this colleague would normally barely speak to her.  She submitted that the phone call she received felt to her an official verbal warning and that the follow up email seemed to be a written warning.  She stated that both the phone call and the email were very upsetting for her as she had been employed as a Practice Manager with the dental practice for nearly 29 years and that this was the first occasion when her ability to perform her duties had been questioned.  She stated that in the circumstances she felt that she had no option but to resign. 

CA-00042059-001

The Respondent submitted that there was no valid trade dispute, and that the Respondent would not participate in the complaint under the Industrial Relations Act 1969.

Despite that position, as part of their submission the Respondent set out the following by way of factual background:

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent practice in February 1992 and that she worked six hours per week and that she was employed as a Practice Manager.  The Respondent submitted a copy of the employment contract.  The Respondent submitted that the contract of employment contained a clear and accessible grievance procedure, to which the Complainant had recourse for any issues she experienced during the course of her employment and that at no time during her employment did the Complainant raise any issues of concern, either formally or informally, and that she failed to invoke the grievance procedure. 

The Respondent submitted that in 2008 the then owners of the Respondent practice amended the duties of the Complainant to that of bookkeeper and that she continued to work six hours per week with a salary of €25.00 per hour.  The Respondent submitted that the practice was sold in March 2020 to the Respondent and that the Complainant was unhappy that she did not receive a payment upon the sale of the practice.  The Respondent submitted that the Complainant held the role of Practice Manager with primary responsibility for book-keeping within the practice.  He submitted that following the acquisition of the practice by the Respondent in June 2020, the Respondent recruited a Practice Nurse who would also act as a Business Manager and who was engaged to develop the business into the future.  The Respondent submitted that this was not the role of the Complainant, who worked as a part time bookkeeper and was not engaged in business development. 

The Respondent submitted that on the 8thJune 2020 the CEO of the Respondent met with the Complainant to discuss the new role of the Business Manager and to introduce the Complainant to the Business Manager.  The Respondent submitted that the Complainant believed, erroneously, that her role was being transferred to that of the new Business Manager, and she expressed concerns in that regard in a letter of the 18thJune 2020.  The Respondent submitted that by letter on the 19thJune 2020, the CEO responded to the Complainant and made it clear that she remained in the position of Practice Manager and that no changes were proposed for her position.  As part of that correspondence, he set out clearly the role of the Business Manager who was a nurse with responsibility for clinical governance.  He submitted that this reflected the advanced dentistry service offered by the Respondent and he submitted that he offered to sit down with the Complainant to discuss any issues she had.  He submitted that the Complainant did not take up the offer of a meeting and continued to work alongside the newly appointed Business Manager.  He submitted that the Complainant was not merely engaged in payroll matters,  but had access to all software packages of the Respondent, including holding the passwords for same. 

The Respondent submitted that on the 27thNovember 2020 the CEO spoke to the Complainant by telephone, the contents of that telephone conversation are contained in a follow up email of the same date, a copy of which was appended to the submission.  The Respondent submitted that it was clear that the Complainants’ duties encapsulated payroll and filling out of certain revenue documentation and that the Complainant had stated that she did not have the necessary information to fill in a particular revenue form but that she did not seek to gather this information.  The Respondent further submitted that in the absence of any notice whatsoever, by email dated the 4thDecember 2020, the Complainant submitted her resignation from employment and that it was only after her resignation from employment that the Complainant set out certain issues in relation to the email of the 27th November 2020, in an email of the 18th December 2020, which was her last day of work prior to resignation taking effect.  The Respondent submitted that the CEO duly responded by return and made it clear that the Complainant should continue to undertake the payroll for the dental practice including the verification of working hours of certain staff members. 

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant duly resigned from employment on the 4thDecember 2020 with the resignation taking effect from the 1st January 2021 with her last day of work being the 8th December 2020.  The Respondent confirmed in their submission that there was no written or verbal warning issued to the Complainant and that her belief that the email of the 27thNovember 2020 from the CEO, which was merely asking the Complainant to undertake a task in line with her responsibilities as an employee, was unreasonable.  The Respondent outlined that the Complainant did not raise any grievances prior to her resignation from employment and that there was no aggressive treatment as alleged or at all, directed at the Complainant. 

CA-00042059-001

I noted that this complaint was lodged under the Industrial Relations Act alleging that the Complainant was bullied by the Respondent, and I noted that the Respondent had submitted that they would not participate in the complaint under the Industrial Relations Act and that they were consistent with that position at hearing.

I noted further that, prior to hearing, the Workplace Relations Commission had written to the Respondent advising them of the complaint and notifying them of the requisite timeframe for responding if they had an objection to the hearing into this matter.  I noted that no response was received from the Respondent and in that context this complaint remains to be dealt with by this Adjudication Officer.

I noted that in the claim form the Complainant referred to a phone call and follow up email which occurred on 27th November between her and the CEO and his follow up email of the same days which she cited as the examples of bullying and harassment by the Respondent.  She further described the tone of the CEO, during that phone call as aggressive.  I noted that she stated that this was the first time her performance or her ability to perform her duties had been questioned.

I noted that she viewed the interaction regarding her performance as a verbal warning and the subsequent email from the CEO as a written warning and that the Complainant resigned her post.  I noted further that the Complainant raised concerns in relation to issues regarding her duties on her last day of employment.

It is clear from the information provided by the parties that the CEO was annoyed when he contacted the Complainant regarding the fact that she did not complete the required social welfare form nor seek out the information to enable it to be completed.  It is also clear that his expression of this annoyance could never be construed as a verbal warning nor could his subsequent email be considered to be a written warning.  It is clear that the CEO was merely setting down clarity in relation to the Complainant’s role and clarity as to how he expected her to undertake her duties.  It is also clear to me that the Complainant wished to have a definitive list of duties, while the CEO expected the 2 senior staff in the practice to work in a co-operative and flexible manner.

The Complainant did not raise any other issues as examples of bullying. Bullying is defined as “repeated” behaviour and what is abundantly clear is that the interaction between the CEO and the Complainant was a “one-off” situation that could have been addressed within the Respondent Grievance Procedure.  However, it is also clear that the Complainant did not attempt to address her concerns within the procedure and, instead, resigned her position.

Taking all of the above into account I find that this complaint is not well founded.

I have found that this complaint is not well founded and in that context I have no further recommendation in the matter.

Bullying, grievance procedure