Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Office Administrator

A Rape and Abuse Centre

Representatives

Susanne Griffin  SIPTU

Kevin Bell BL Instructed by DAC Beachcroft

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Industrial Relations Act 1969

CA—00051723-001

16/7/2022

The Employee was employed as an Office Administrator and lodged a grievance against her Manager relating to conversations regarding work related issues. The grievance was heard by the Chairperson of the Board and the Employee was both unhappy with the outcome and the manner in which the grievance process was conducted.

The Employee, represented by SIPTU, contended that her Employer acted unfairly by not affording the Employee due process and fair procedures, a safe place to work resulting in the Employee certified unfit to work due to stress.

The Employee sought an independent investigation agreed by the parties to hear the appeal, the Employee also sought financial compensation for the unnecessary stress and anxiety suffer by her following the behaviour of the Employer.

The Employee commenced employment in 2017 as an Administrator. Over that time the Employee has carried out her duties and responsibilities with both professionalism and diligence albeit during this time the Employee experienced inappropriate behaviours both direct and indirect from her line manager. These behaviours involved initiation and excess micromanagement. Although, the Employee sought to address these behaviours through an informal process with her line manager, she received threats of disciplinary sanction up to and including dismissal directed to her.

Frustration with the behaviours, the constant snipes, and the fact that the Employee felt threatened with her employment resulted in the workplace environment becoming an unsafe place to work.

In May 2022, the Employee submitted a detail complaint of the inappropriate behaviours directed to her by her line manager to the Chairman of the Board.

The Chairman contacted the Employee by email in what was described as challenging manner. The Employee described the tone of the Chairman as unsupportive and was advised not to attend work on the Monday. The Representative submitted the instruction was somewhat surprising taking cognisance that the Chairman does not hold the necessary medical qualification to provide such a medical opinion.

The Employee reported to duty on the Monday, however she was immediately approached by her line manager. The line manager advised the Employee that she was to be sent home on the instruction of the Chairman and if she felt she wanted to ring him she gave the Employee his number. The Representative stated they are all fully aware that the Employer has a legal responsibility to ensure all Employees are afforded a safe place to work. The Representative advised the fact that an allegation of in-appropriate behaviours was submitted to the Chairman and following receipt he made the decision to instruct the alleged perpetrator to send the Employee home on her arrival into her workplace was inappropriate.

The Employee rang the Chairman who confirmed the instruction and suggested mediation. At no stage during the conversation did the Employer suggest medical assessment to identify the Employees fitness to work. The Employee went to her own Doctor resulting in her certified unfit to work.

On the 23 rd May 2022, the Employee furnished the Chair with medial certificate stating her fitness to work.

On the 02nd of June 2022, the Employer wrote to the Employee inviting her an investigatory meeting.

The grievance hearing was scheduled for the 8th of June 2022.

No terms of reference were furnished although requested, and fact that the Chairman was both the judge, jury and executor demonstrated the fact that the principle of impartially was disregarded.

The investigatory meeting was a hostile to the point that the Chair refused any contributions of the Employee representative or allow for the interviewing of witnesses which were put forward. Notes were issued and several inaccuracies were highlighted, and correction put forward, albeit they were ignored, and a decision was made.

On the 7th of July 2022, the Employer issued correspondence advising the Employee that her grievance was not upheld. No accompanying document were issued or did the correspondence provide a synopsis of how the decision was made. The Employee was advised that she could appeal to another Board member, again demonstrating that the Employer was ignoring the principles of natural justice and fair procedures. The decision was appealed and an appeal hearing was scheduled in August 2022, however the Employee was certified unfit to work. The approach adopted by the Employer was causing unnecessary stress and anxiety for the Employee resulting in her being certified sick for work from August 2022. The Employee was certified sick to 18t October 2022. However, the Employer sought their own medical advice and scheduled a meeting to attend the company doctor. Following the medical appointment, the Employee returned to her workplace.

The Employee had secured alternative employment and advised the Employer that she was terminating her employment.

A new Chair at this stage had been appointed and wrote to the Employee advising that the Employer was still able to proceed with the appeal.

The Employee while considering the proposal made the decision not to proceed with the appeal due to the Employee’s previous experience with the process and the lack of impartially that would continue should she accept.

The Representative stated that a basic rule of natural justice is that everybody has the right to be heard and that this does not involve just a mere cosmetic exercise of pretending to listen to the case been put forward, due consideration and weight must be given by an Employer to the evidence having presented. The Representative alleged there is a serious and fundamental unfairness in that that the Employer failed in their obligations to interview the witness and provide a safe workplace environment while the process has been undertaken.

The Representative requested the Adjudicator to recommend that independent investigator be appointment and the Employee be compensated.

The Employer set out the sequence of events and denied any wrongdoings in the process.

The former Chair contributed his version of the events to the Hearing.

The Employer consented to a third party investigation.

The Employee Representative outlined her concerns regarding the grievance process and noted a number of issues which the Employee felt aggrieved with during the appeal process. The Respondent denied that the appeal process was flawed but was willing, subject to Board approval, to engage in the requested third party investigation into the grievance.

I recommend that the Parties engage on and agree terms of reference for an independent investigation by a mutually agreed third party Investigator into the grievance lodged and the process of how the grievance was conducted. The investigation should aim to be completed within two months of the terms of investigation being agreed. If this Recommendation is accepted by the parties, the terms of reference for the investigation should include any right of appeal to the investigation outcome as the parties will probably be statue barred from appealing this Recommendation by the time the investigation is completed.

Trade Dispute