LCR22752

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/23/80

RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR22752

SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969

PARTIES:

AURA DKIT SPORT

- AND -

A WORKER

DIVISION:

Chairman:	Mr Haugh
Employer Member:	Mr Marie
Worker Member:	Ms Tanham

SUBJECT:

1.Bullying and harassment within the workplace by the Manager.

BACKGROUND:

2.The Worker referred this case to the Labour Court on 20 January 2023 in accordance with Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 12 May 2023.

RECOMMENDATION:

Background to the Dispute

The Worker is a student who was employed on a part-time basis as a Fitness Instructor by DKIT Sport (‘the Company’) from 9 November 2021 until her resignation took effect on 1 September 2022. The Worker had informed the Company of her decision to resign by letter dated 19 August 2022. That letter did not state the reason for the Worker’s decision to leave her employment.

Subsequently – by email dated 26 August 2022 and addressed to the Human Resources Department – the Worker notified the Company of her concerns in relation to a number of interactions she had had with her manager that had led to her decision to resign:

“In recent times I have felt pressure from senior management and as a result I reluctantly decided to hand in my notice last week. I am now seeking a meeting with Human Resources due to the unfair treatment I received by [X] and in particular meetings on the 23^rdof May, 19^thof July and the 18^thof August. During those meetings I found it intimidating, ill-mannered and obscene language was used by [X] towards me.”

There followed a series of email exchanges between the Worker and the HR Manager in which the latter provided the Worker with a copy of the Company’s Grievance Policy and reminded her that the Employee Assistance Programme was also available to her. The HR Manager also requested the Worker to reconsider her decision to resign her employment. The Worker indicated she would reflect on her decision and stated that she wished to avail herself of the Grievance Procedure.

In an email dated 31 August 2022, the Worker enquired whether or not her grievance would be fully investigated if she decided not to retract her resignation. The HR Manager replied as follows on the same date:

“As per previous correspondence, if you decide to stay in employment with DKIT, your grievance will be heard as per the policy.
However, if your decision is to leave, you cannot pursue the grievance route.”

Later that day – 31 August 2022 – the Worker confirmed her decision to resign. The Company proceeded to carry out a ‘review’ of the Worker’s complaints against her former manager. The Worker was not invited to participate in this review. The Company concluded that there was “no evidence to substantiate” the Worker’s complaints. When asked by the Court if she would have made herself available to participate in a formal investigation of her complaints after her resignation had taken effect, the Worker said that she would have done so.

When referring her complaint to the Court, the Worker indicated that she was seeking a written apology from the Company and a reference. The Company’s Representative told the Court that the Worker had been provided with a Statement of Service on 13 March 2023. The Worker accepted that she had received this from the Company and was, therefore, withdrawing her request for a reference.

Discussion and Recommendation

The Company has a comprehensive suite of policies in place, a copy of which was before the Court. Those policies include both a Grievance Policy and a Bullying, Harassment and Sexual Harassment Policy. It is unclear to the Court why the HR Manager directed the Worker to progress her complaint under the Grievance Policy when it should have been evident to her on the basis of what the Worker stated in her email of 26 August 2022 that the Worker’s complaint should have been dealt with by the Company under its Bullying, Harassment and Sexual Harassment Policy.

At the hearing before the Court, the Company’s Representative acknowledged that the Worker’s complaints were “of a serious nature”. She also acknowledged that the Company’s decision not to fully investigate the Worker’s complaint and its decision to carry out a ‘review’ only once her resignation had been confirmed fell short of best practice. The Representative undertook to revisit this aspect of the Company’s policies.

Notwithstanding the shortcomings in the Company’s handling of the Worker’s complaint in this case, as outlined above, the Court cannot accede to the Worker’s request to recommend that the Company issue her with a written apology.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court

	Alan Haugh
TH	______________________
15 May 2023	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Therese Hickey, Court Secretary.