Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

An Operative

A Construction Pre-Cast / Heavy Goods Manufacturer

Representatives

  Self-Represented

 Self-Represented /Company Managers

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 - 00000457

12/07/2022

The issue in dispute concerns serious allegations, by the Worker, of Bullying and Harassment by two fellow Workers at the manufacturing site.

It was alleged that the Employer failed to take any proper steps to stop the Bullying and by inaction was effectively completely remiss in their duty to provide the Worker with a “Safe Place of Work” as required by Law.

The Employment began on the 4th October 2021 and ended on the 1st September 2022.

The Worker gave an Oral Testimony supported by a written submission.

He stated that he had been subjected to a campaign of Verbal and latterly Physical harassment by two fellow employees, a father and son - Worker Mr M and son Mr R respectively.

The issues began in early 2022 and verbal abuse, name calling, insulting allegations etc became a daily occurrence. The Worker raised the issue with Mr PR, the Owner Manager, who promised to “sort it”.

Nothing happened. On the 7th April 2022 a particularly nasty exchange took place. The Worker reported this to Ms LR who again asked for time to “sort things out”.  The Worker did his best to avoid Mr M and Mr R.

 A further set of incidents happened on the 22nd of June 2022. For his own Safety the Worker felt he had no option but to go home. Mr PR moved the Worker to another location on the Plant to keep him away from colleagues M & R. The Worker told Mr PR that he was “going to the Guards”. Mr PR told him that he was suspending Mr M. The Worker was told that he could come back the following day, but Mr R would also be back. The Worker declined to come back as he felt “Unsafe”. He stayed out for a week. On the 4th July further incidents took place with Mr R.

At this stage the issue was referred to the WRC by the Worker. He described this as a cry for help to the WRC as the Employer was doing nothing.

Post this date Ms LR (26th July 2022) began in investigation and asked for names of witnesses etc. The Worker was out over the Bank Holiday weekend of the 1st August 2022. Ms LR asked him on a number of occasions if he was coming back after the Bank Holiday. He refused to commit to returning as both Mr M and Mr R were now back at work.  As this, he alleged, would be a very “unsafe environment” for the Worker he stayed out of work.

He was subsequently made Redundant on the 1st September 2022 due to an alleged decline in demand for the Company’s products.

The Worker was seeking Redress for the Bullying and Harassment he had suffered and the failure of the Managers to properly address the issues.

Oral Testimony was given by Ms R, Administrator/HR of the Employer.

The Managing Director, her brother, was unavailable at the Hearing for personal reasons.

Ms R had been actively involved with this case from the start.

The MD had sought since early 2022 to get the Workers involved to sort things out among themselves. It was not appropriate behaviour for grown men in a workplace. It was accepted that the Worker in this case and Mr M & son Mr R had issues involving a lot of name calling and generally unacceptable behaviours. There was no doubt that Mr M and Mr R were out of order. The MD had pointed this out to them.  The MD, Mr PR, had moved the Worker to another work location on the site in an attempt, unsuccessful it appeared, to cool things down.

The incident of the 19th July 2022 had been the subject of a formal investigation by Ms R. All possible witnesses had been interviewed by her. All witness could not remember anything about the incident and had seen nothing. Her Investigation according could reach no conclusions.

She had contacted the Worker over the Bank Holiday weekend to see if he was coming back to work, but the Worker had declined to do so.

In questioning from the Adjudication officer, she agreed that she had never seen any Codes of Practice on Bullying / Dignity at Work published by the WRC or the HSA. It was a small Family business.

Ms R was a competent Managerial witness. Her final summary was that the MD, Mr PR and herself had tried their best to get “adult” men to sort out this issue. For reasons no one could understand the dispute, bests characterised as “interpersonal”, had continued to fester.

An attempt at a proper Workplace investigation had gone nowhere as there were no witnesses or colleagues of either side prepared to give any evidence.

The Local Garda Sergeant when consulted by the Worker had also tried to informally resolve matters between the Parties. Ms R was not sure if she (The Sergeant) had cooled things down, but it was made clear that any further physical assaults would be treated as a formal Garda matter.

The business was suffering from the COVID fallout in the Construction Industry. The work had “dried up” and the Worker had been made Redundant as a result. This had nothing to do with the Bullying allegations. He was a good Worker, and they were sorry that they had no more work for him in September 2022.

From the Oral evidence it remained unclear as to what was the original motivation behind this dispute. It was between the Worker and a Father/Son combination. The Workplace was not large.

It was clear that fellow Workers on the site did not want to get involved.

The Management appeared well intentioned and made numerous efforts to get the issues sorted satisfactorily. The local Garda Sergeant was also, as reported, doing her best to mediate.

From an Industrial Relations point of view and Legally from the Safety, Health and Welfare Act,2005 the Worker is entitled to a “Safe place of Work”.

It appeared that this may not have been the case, especially following the incidents of July the 19th when a physical assault may have taken place. Fortunately, there was no physical injury to the Worker save for some upset and shock. It appeared that the Father and Son combination were sent home that day by Mr PR, the Managing Director. It was unclear how long this absence lasted but they were both back at work a short time later - according to the Worker. He effectively refused to come back as he now felt “Unsafe”- in his own words.

In overall summary there were no witnesses save the word of the Worker. He appeared very genuine.

The oft referenced “Shop Floor” did not want to get involved as witnesses, when asked by Ms R. The Adjudication officer is quite experienced in Industrial Relations situations involving the “Shop Floor”. The refusal of colleagues to get involved might well indicate that the issues involved were largely of a personal nature and even possibly completely external to the Workplace.

It is not the role of an Adjudication Officer of the WRC to offer Management Consultancy.

However, suffice to say that the Management were sailing “Close to the wind” in terms of a range of possible Legal outcomes. If a physical injury had happened to the Worker, which was not an impossibility in the nature of the heavy physical work environment, the possible Legal consequences for the Management might have been quite unpleasant.

Ms R for Management was unaware of the Bullying at Work Code of Practice albeit it was only published in January 2021 but replacing an earlier Code from 2007.

Accordingly, the Adjudication conclusion is that the Worker, on the balance of probability, had reason to feel unsafe at work but in the absence of witnesses it can only be an experienced outside judgement of the situation.

The Recommendation therefore is that a Lump Sum of €1,000 be paid as compensation to the Worker for his distress and upset.

The Management is also recommended to look to some appropriate Training in Safety, Health and Welfare at Work especially in the area of Bullying.

Safety at Work, Bullying, Code of Practice