Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

General Operative

A  Local Authority

Representatives

Barnaba Dorda SIPTU

Keith Irvine LGMA

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 - 00001069

02/02/2023

The worker is in dispute with the employer as he believes that the employer failed to properly investigate his bullying complaint.  The employer believes that the delay in starting the investigation was due to the fact that the worker did not provide sufficient clarification to enable it to progress. 

The worker submitted a complaint to the employer on 16/03/2022 and then submitted a further complaint on 13/05/2022.  It was submitted on behalf of the worker that the employer did not treat his complaint seriously.  There were no meetings held with him to discuss his complaint and the outcome of his initial complaint was communicated to him four months later without any investigation.

The worker submitted his first complaint on 16/03/3022 the employer sought more detail and also clarification in relation to the policy he wished to pursue the complaint despite the fact that he made it clear that this was a Dignity at Work complaint.

The worker provided further clarification, and this was rejected by the respondent.  It is the worker’s position that a meeting should have been organised to discuss his complaint and this would have been in line with the employer’s policy which states:”(…) Where this is not possible, a written record should be taken of the complaint by the assigned person and signed by the complainant and dated.  (…)”

Having received further clarification from the worker the employer did not act on this for a period of four months.  The employer was aware that the worker was having serious issues with his supervisor, and this impacted on his ability to attend work. 

The employer made no attempt to look at alternatives which would have facilitated the worker’s return to work.  This could have been achieved by means of transfer either the worker or the supervisor.  The employer’s Dignity at Work policy provides for a separation of the parties in such a situation.

The result of the delay by the employer in conducting an investigation in line with the provisions of their Dignity at Work policy resulted in the worker losing his job as he was disciplined for failing to attend work.  The employer decided to conduct an investigation after it had dismissed the worker.

The worker is seeking compensation for the employer’s failure to investigate his complaint under the Dignity at Work policy. 

The employer accepts that the worker submitted a complaint in March 2022, and this was followed by a further complaint on 13/05/2022.  The employer sought clarification regarding which policy he wished to pursue the complaints.  No response was received to this request.  The investigation was also delayed as there was a lack of clarity in relation to the complaints.

The employer appointed a Senior Manager to hear the complaints in September 2022 and the terms of reference were prepared.  The worker did not engage, and the matter could not be progressed.  On 18/11/2022 the worker’s trade union representative withdrew the complaints.

The employer believes that it dealt with the complaints in as timely a manner as possible given that: (a) the worker was absent from work from the 24/01/2022

(b) the worker failed to clarify which policy he was pursuing the matter under and

(c) his lack of engagement in the process.

Given that the worker withdrew his complaints the employer submits that they have no case to answer.

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

This dispute has a related link to the worker’s relationship with his employer which resulted in his dismissal in August 2022 for reasons of unauthorised absence which the worker at all times linked to complaints which are the subject of this dispute.

The employer sees this as an entirely separate matter whereas the worker sees that they are “strictly connected”.

The worker rejects the employer’s view that he “withdrew” the complaints.  The worker’s position is that commencing an investigation one month after he was dismissed was a futile exercise and particularly because this was six months after the complaint was initially submitted.

This is a trade dispute referred by the worker under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.  Consequently, there is no complaint under any employment rights statute or any matter of law before me in this referral. There is no formal evidence taken in relation to a dispute of this nature, and there no witness evidence. In that context there are no findings of fact made.

Having reviewed the employer’s Dignity at Work policy it is clear that there was an initial delay in getting precise details.  The employer’s insistence that the worker provide greater clarity was not in keeping with their policy.  It was noted on behalf of the worker that presenting something in a written format presented challenges for him.  The employer should have held a meeting and a record of that meeting kept and signed by the complainant and this would have provided the necessary clarification for the employer.  I do not accept that the worker’s absence was a factor.  The employer was well aware that the worker was in a position to attend other meetings.

I note that the employer’s policy does not specific timelines.  The role of an Adjudicator is to make a recommendation to try and resolve this dispute.  The worker is no longer employed, and I am limited in relation to any recommendation.  I do note that the employer did commence an investigation, but this did not progress as the worker did not believe it was a worthwhile exercise.

I am not able to make a recommendation in favour of the worker.

Investigation.  Delay.