ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: ADJ-00037419
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | Customer Support Worker | Computer and Consumer Electronics Company |
Representatives | Self-Represented | Senior Employee Relations Managers. |
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 | CA-00048813-001 | 26/02/2022 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Thomas O'Driscoll
Date of Hearing: 18/04/2023
Procedure:
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. The Employer had submitted that it only received the Complainant’s full submission on 14 April 2022 and was disadvantaged in that it was not aware of the nature of the Worker’s dispute and sought an adjournment when it was identified that she was seeking compensation for unfair treatment. I was satisfied that the original complaint form gave sufficient details of alleged unfair treatment and, moreover, documentation exhibited showed that the Employer was aware of a claim for compensation prior to the hearing. I was satisfied also that the submission received by the Employer on the Friday prior to the hearing on the following Tuesday, did not alter the nature of the Worker’s claims. I therefore decided that the hearing should go ahead.
Background:
The Worker, of French nationality, commenced employment in August 2017 as a Customer Support worker and progressed to a position of Agreement Administrator. The Worker submits that she raised numerous complaints about a lack of communication and the unfair distribution of work. She submits that she found the situation intolerable and that eventually she had to resign in December 2021. She is seeking compensation for unfair treatment. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The Worker stated that things started to deteriorate for her in her new position after six months coinciding with the arrival of a new area manager. There was a serious lack of communication and she and her teammates found that there was an unfair allocation of work. The Worker claims that she brought the deterioration in working conditions to the attention of her managers on numerous occasions, but nothing was done or even acknowledged. She claims that the response of management was mainly advising workers that they should not be engaging in negative conversations amongst themselves. The Worker claims that the inaction of management to her plight greatly affected her mental health to such an extent that she went out on sick leave and felt she had no other option but to resign in December 2021. The Worker kept in contact with management and sought an investigation of her situation. The main points and conclusions of the investigation were exhibited by the Worker. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Employer stated that it prided itself on resolving issues of staff welfare and considers that it has top class employee relations mechanisms to deal with issues raised by employees. The Employer submits that the Worker never utilised the formal grievance procedure. When the Worker submitted her resignation letter a senior manager contacted her and offered her an alternative position but, the Employer asserts, the Worker was interested only in compensation. The Employer also arranged an investigation of the Worker’s which concluded in a number of recommendations being made to improve internal relations in the area where the Worker was employed. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. I must firstly address a misconception of the Worker with regard to dispute resolution under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, as amended. The Worker sought compensation for what she perceived as personal injuries caused by the failure of management to address her issues in a timely manner. The Worker was a French national and professed not to be aware of the limitations of dispute resolution under the Act. However, I re-iterated that my role was to address any perceived unfairness in her dealings with the Employer but not to impose legal solutions in the area of personal injuries, which was outside of my remit.
The Employer argued that the Worker did not utilise the grievance procedure per se in following her complaints and the Worker accepted that she did not formally use the grievance procedure but exhibited copious documents to show her communications with management on her work-related problems were not sufficiently acknowledged nor meaningfully addressed at first instance. I am satisfied that alarm bells should have been ringing for management over a period of time, but no reasonable response was given to what were quite serious issues. The plain fact of the matter was that the Worker’s grievances were only taken seriously after her letter of resignation in December 2021 and when, rather belatedly, the conclusions of an investigation were released in April 2022.
Any reasonable reading of the investigation report shows that the concerns of the Worker were mainly upheld and recommendations were made to management to follow through and correct practices that were in place. Unfortunately, such corrective measures were too late for the Worker who had already resigned. I can only reasonably assume that the transformation from a very happy worker to a demoralised and deeply unhappy worker can be attributable in no small way way to the patent unfairness that arose from management’s refusal to deal with the serious concerns raised by the Worker, in a timely manner. Having given consideration to all the arguments in this case I am satisfied that the Worker was subject to unacceptable unfair treatment and that the compensation should be reflective of this. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute. I recommend concession of the Worker’s claim and I advise that the Employer pay the Worker compensation of €10,000.
Dated: 8th May 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Thomas O'Driscoll
Key Words:
Industrial Relations Act 1969, Unfair Treatment. |