Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Technical Support Worker

An Outsourcing Company

Representatives

 Self-represented

 No appearance

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2015

CA-00048282-001

23/01/2022

This case is linked to ADJ-00036405 – it is largely a duplicate.

The Complainant filed ADJ-00036405 while still in employment with the Respondent and the complaint herein subsequent to her employment being terminated by the Respondent. However, both cases came up for hearing subsequent to her dismissal and the facts articulated at both hearings overlapped significantly.

The Complainant attended the hearing and spoke on her own behalf.

A hearing was convened on 10/01/2023.

The Respondent submitted a written submission and supporting documentation, in advance of the hearing of ADJ-00036405, and indicated that it would not be attending that hearing. It submitted nothing additional prior to the hearing of this dispute herein.

At this hearing, no appearance was entered by the Respondent. Subsequent to the second hearing, the Respondent wrote to the WRC explaining that in the context of remote/hybrid working, the physical copy of the notification of the second hearing date had gone to the Respondent’s office and had been missed by the Respondent until subsequent to the hearing date. I am satisfied that the Respondent was properly on notice of the hearing date.

At the hearing, the Complainant re-iterated her complaints – a lack of formal training; unhappiness about her tickets being closed by other employees or “disappearing” – she characterised them has having been “stolen”; other people receiving training ahead of her; deteriorating mental health due to work-related stress; a lack of supports although she did acknowledge that she was working wholly remotely and that subsequent to a diagnosis of autism “mostly the accommodations needed were provided.”; a re-configuration in the company and quite a few changes of managers/teams whereby it was her perception that the information in relation to her diagnosis (and accommodations required) was not passed on or “honoured.”

The Complainant advised that she had an employability advisor, through the Department of Social Protection (DSP) and the Respondent had engaged with her employability advisor.

She explained that she was on a period of extended sick leave due to “work-related stress.”

The Complainant made complaints utilising the company’s grievance procedure and they were not upheld. The Complainant also alleged that she perceived a change in attitude, once she made the complaint.

She outlined that at one point her phone programme broke and she went “on strike”, that she refused to take any calls until it was fixed. She also requested training in the new programme and in the new systems.

The Complainant received a final written warning in February 2022.

The Adjudication Officer, at the hearing, asked as to whether the Complainant had received any accommodations between January 2022 and March 2022, and the Complainant said that she had not.

She said that she had a few sentences on chat with (SR) and that on foot of that, she was dismissed.

The Complainant said that no appeal was offered in her letter of termination, that she requested an appeal, that the Respondent then offered her an appeal a week later but that she did not appeal. She emphasised the condition of her mental health and wellbeing at that point.

The Respondent did not attend the hearing and no submissions were submitted in relation to the dispute herein. Comprehensive submissions were sent to the WRC by the Respondent prior to the previous hearing date convened, which covered both the period in advance of the Complainant’s dismissal (the previous dispute referred in) and the circumstances relating to the run up to the Complainant’s dismissal (this complaint) and the Complainant’s dismissal.

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

The Adjudication Officer has decided, of her own volition, to anonymise this decision on the basis that “special circumstances” apply, as this complaint is so closely linked with the previous complaint, ADJ-00036405, both in nature and in content, that to publish the names of the parties in this case would, of necessity, reveal their identities in relation to ADJ-00036405, which as a matter of law had to be held “otherwise than in public”; Furthermore, ADJ-00036405 which was conducted “otherwise than in public” identifies the Complainant as someone who has a diagnosis of autism.

I find that the Respondent actively engaged with the Complainant on several occasions throughout her employment, addressed concerns she raised, investigated her complaints and utilised its internal processes fully; and explained in writing to her that management decisions the Complainant does not like do not constitute bullying.

I find that the Respondent utilised its processes in relation to taking disciplinary action against the Complainant – the comments and language which were the subject matter of the disciplinary process were acknowledged as common case by both sides. I note that the Respondent clearly communicated to the Complainant, in writing, that (NS) had cited her behaviour as one of his key reasons for resigning his employment.

I find that the Respondent supported the Complainant by engaging with her employability advisor from DSP as well as with her.

I find that the Complainant understood that she was on a final written warning and the implications of that, i.e. that her job was in jeopardy, subject to her conduct.

Ultimately, the Complainant’s employment was terminated, in line with the Respondent’s processes.

The Complainant did not appeal the decision, citing her mental health at the time, as the reason.

I find for the Respondent.

I find that no evidence of penalisation was advanced.

Industrial Relations; Unfair Dismissal; Penalisation;