ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00000348
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | An operative | A recycling firm |
Representatives | Self-represented | ESA Consultants |
Dispute:
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 - 00000348 | 07/06/2022 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Date of Hearing: 14/03/2023
Procedure:
On the 7th June 2022, the worker referred a dispute to the Workplace Relations Commission. It was scheduled for adjudication on the 14th March 2023.
The worker attended in person and was accompanied by his mother. The respondent was represented by Ana Rosa Raso, ESA Consultants. Two members of management attended.
In accordance with section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended)following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute.
Summary of Workers Case:
The worker outlined that when he went back in June 2020, an incident occurred when he was loading one of the loaders. The health and safety officer had a go at him and sent him home at 11.30am. The health and safety officer approached the worker and told the worker that he would ‘sort me out’. This was a most severe physical threat. It was the first time the worker had felt threatened. He texted the line manager on the Saturday who was on holidays, and he returned from holidays on the Monday to meet. The line manager said that he would do a full investigation and the supervisor was deemed to have been upset. The employer said it could not force an apology and the parties were separated. The supervisor was left in the yard. The worker said that this was not a great outcome. There were no further incidents, and he went on PUP again. The worker said that this had not been the first time he had been abused and was caused stress. He had passed out before, and an ambulance called. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The worker raised the bullying incident on the 17th August and the employer took immediate action. The respondent investigated the matter and met the worker. There was pressure around this time and there was an exchange of words. There was no complaint of bullying and harassment. The 17th August complaint was a complaint about the incident and one incident does not amount to bullying. The worker declined to engage with the HR consultant. The worker and the supervisor met and shook hands. The line manager said that he had investigated the incident and did his best to move this forward. He was trying to implement the two metre rule and stress had built up. For harmony he was not in a position to force an apology and the lads agreed to put it behind them. This was the best result to get the guys to dust themselves off. He was not sure if there was a shake of hands and the worker continued to work. This all came to a head. In respect of the previous incident, the worker had a fit and was falling off a chair. The line manager caught him and put the worker into the recovery position. The line manager remained until the ambulance came. |
Conclusions:
This dispute relates to a complaint made by the worker on the 17th August 2020. It related to intimidatory behaviour by a supervisor. It amounted to a physical threat. The worker considered it to be a serious matter and I agree with this assessment. The employer intervened promptly and sought to separate the findings. There was, however, no clear resolution of the matter and the worker was not satisfied. It fell to the employer to make a finding in line with the Dignity at Work policy that the behaviour on the 17th August was unacceptable. I appreciate that this was during the time of essential services trying to cope with the restrictions necessitated by the pandemic. This involved an interaction between a supervisor and an operative, and there is an imbalance between the two. The issue ought to have been addressed fully in line with the Dignity at Work policy. I find that there is merit to the worker’s claim, and I recommend that the employer pay €500 to the worker in respect of this matter. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I recommend that the employer pay to the worker €500 in recognition that the Dignity at Work policy should have been formally engaged following the complaint of the 17th August 2020.
Dated: 21st June 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Key Words:
Industrial Relations Act / Dignity at Work |