Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Sales Assistant

A Department Store

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 - 00000100

24/04/2022

The issue in contention concerned the alleged Bullying and Harassment of the Worker by a named Department Store Manager. The processing of this alleged grievance, formally raised by the Worker, was not handled, it was alleged, in any reasonable timeframe.

The employment began on the 19th October 2021 and ended on the 4th January 2022.

The rate of pay was €500 per fortnight for a 20-hour week.

The Worker gave an extensive Oral Testimony supported by detailed documentation.  Assistance was provided by a Friend/Consultant, Mr. O’D, an expert in the Management of Retail Business.

The Worker had commenced in the Store on the 19th October 2021 as a Seasonal Worker, in the Marvel Department, for the Christmas period. This work was formally ended on the 4th January but this was not communicated to him until the 2nd March 2022.

In essence, his case was that he was subjected to an assault from a Manager in the Marvel Dept on the 5th November 2021. He had followed all the correct internal procedures to have the matter resolved.  He listed an extensive range of Managers from HR who had been involved in the case. It appeared that his case was not taken seriously and was subjected to a horrific “pass the parcel” routine.  

Numerous Departmental and HR Managers were involved. Following the initial complaint, the Worker had been moved to another Department (Menswear). This arose from the intervention of Ms. O’T, the Divisional Manager.  The Store seemed to have believed, erroneously, that this had resolved the issue.

The Worker had made a formal complaint that he wished to have formally addressed. Unfortunately for himself he had fallen ill with Covid (29th November to 19th December2021) and was out of the Store for most of December 2021.

 The CCTV footage, crucial to the Inquiry was allowed lapse /disappear. The Head of HR, Mr. O’L, who it seemed had taken over the file in January 2022, appeared to have made progress towards Resolution. He had sought to meet with the Worker in February/ March.  

Mr. O’L, unfortunately for this case, left the business in early March 2022. In a now familiar pattern, alleged the Worker, the case was then taken over afresh by Ms S. O’T, a further HR Business partner. He was first formally interviewed on the 12th April 2022. This was approximately six months /120 + days after the incident.

In frustration with this appalling procrastination and lack of ownership by the Employer he was compelled to lodge a complaint to the WRC on the 24th April 2022. At this date no formal outcomes had been produced by the Employer.

In summary, the Employer is in complete breach of all their own HR Policies and indeed any reasonable Employee/Employer standards which are as set out in SI 146 of 2000 – Statutory Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures.

Compensation from the Employer for the stress and personal hardship inflicted on the Worker is clearly warranted together with an apology from the other Party to the incident on the 5th November 2021.

The Employer was represented by Mr Dwyer of IBEC and evidence was given by Employer Managers Ms O’T and Ms C. The chronology of events was not contested. However, in mitigation, the impact of Covid and the traditionally very busy Christmas season for all Retailers was referred to.

Mr Dwyer pointed out that the incident of the 5th November 2021 had been fully investigated. Ms O’T had issued a full outcome on the 2nd June 2022. This was not in the Workers favour. He had appealed the case to Ms C who heard a full appeal on the 4th July 2022. Her outcome was issued on the 11th July 2022. This Appeal upheld the Decision of Ms. O’T in rejecting the complaint.

Detailed evidence was given of witness interviews, all of which were provided to the Worker. Full discussions at both initial Hearing and Appeal Hearing took place.

It had been most unfortunate that Mr. O’L, the then Head of HR who had progressed matters significantly in the early Spring had to leave the Business for Personal reasons. In the best interest of all concerned, Ms O’T had then to begin, in late March, the investigation almost “ab inito.” None the less the investigation had been most professional, and the Worker was kept fully involved. The Outcome was appealed and the position of Ms O’T in rejecting the Complaint was upheld.

SI 146 of 2000 had been fully observed.

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

Extensive written materials were presented and supported by Oral Testimony. Taking SI 146 of 2000 into account the process could not be faulted. The Outcome and Appeal were reasonable.

The issue of concern under the Industrial Relations Act of 1969 was the inordinate delay in brining matters to a conclusion. From the evidence presented the incident itself was certainly open to various interpretations. However, the Oral Testimony from Ms O’T and Ms C, who heard the final appeal was coherent and well argued.

Likewise, the Oral Testimony from the Worker was sincere and coherent.

The issues in contention, a physical assault, were serious in any Employment context. The principal allegation was that the Manager had assaulted the Worker and pushed / manhandled him a distance of some 20 feet.

There did not appear to be any physical injuries and no interruptions to the Retail business on the day took place.  However, the Worker suffered, he alleged, considerable psychological shock requiring him to go home early on the day. Other staff members, Mr B and Mr H, present of the day, had given evidence that did not fully corroborate the alleged seriousness of the claim.

Nonetheless and as stated above Industrial Relations views and experience are required in coming to a view regarding the Delays to the Process.

The Delay was most unwelcome. However on review of all the evidence, minutes of meetings, extensive documentation presented and the Oral Testimony of the Parties the delay was not so grievous as to alter the outcome in any significant manner. None the less it requires to be marked in a significant manner.

Accordingly, I recommend that the Employer Store, without any admission of any liability, but in view of the most unusual delays involved, make a Charitable Donation of €500 to a Charity to be nominated by the Worker.

Delays in investigation of Grievance dispute.