Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Retained Firefighter

A County Council

Representatives

Rachel Hartery SIPTU

Eamonn Hunt of 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 - 00001234

03/04/2023

The worker raised grievances about the behaviour of his acting Station Officer and says the investigation was flawed. He wants a re-investigation and compensation for the effects of the behaviour he was subject to. The employer says the grievances were properly investigated and a re-investigation would serve no purpose.

The worker started with the employer as a Retained Fire Fighter in May 2015. In February 2022 he was appointed General Operator in the Water Services Division. When a new Acting Station Officer (ASO) was appointed the worker started experiencing difficulties.

When out in the van, with co-workers present, the ASO repeatedly made derogatory comments about travellers. The worker felt this was directed at his wife is from the traveller community. The worker found these discriminatory comments offensive and said this on occasions. He feels the ASO was aware of this. Subsequent to this their working relationship was strained. The worker felt bullied and harassed by the ASO.

The worker gave examples include poor communication, including an incident at a house fire when the ASO gave the worker incorrect instructions which put the worker’s life in danger. Also, there were incidents, including leave being cancelled and the worker saying he was berated by the ASO even though he had followed correct communication procedures. The relationship between the worker and the ASO deteriorated and the worked lodged a formal complaint to HR in April 2022, for discrimination, bullying, harassment, endangerment and unfair treatment.

An independent person was appointed to investigate matters of bullying, harassment and discrimination. A serving senior firefighter within the employer was appointed to investigate the matter of endangerment. The worker says there were serious flaws in both investigations.

The worker says the first investigation confirmed that discriminatory remarks were made by the ASO but recommended no action. The worker also says the investigator failed to properly look into other incidents.

In the second investigation dealing with endangerment the worker says the evidence does not support the findings and key witnesses were not interviewed.

The worker says the actions of the ASO seriously affected him and the investigations were unsatisfactory.

The employer says there was an incident on 25 April 2022 between the ASO and the worker. During the incident the ASO rang the Assistant Chief Fire Officer (ACFO). The ACFO could hear the worker in the background and based on what he heard made the decision to “stand down” the worker from duty. The worker was advised to attend a disciplinary meeting on 28 April 2002. Due to the worker’s absence on sick leave the meeting was postponed until 13 May 2022. The employer says that the worker accepted his behaviour on 25 April was unacceptable, he also accepted he sent unsuitable text messages to the ASO. He was told to formalise the complaints he put to the meeting. He was told he could return to work immediately and he did so.

On 30 May the worker submitted a formal complaint and an independent investigator was appointed and a final report was issued on 20 October 2022. It was found that on the balance of probabilities discriminatory remarks were made and were wholly inappropriate. A complaint of bullying, based on 5 interactions, against the ASO was not upheld. A complaint against the ACFO was not upheld. A financial loss was reimbursed. The worker did not appeal the outcome until 14 February 2023. This was not allowed as it was almost 2 months after the appeal deadline.

The Senior Assistant Chief Fire Officer (SACFO) was appointed to investigate a claim of endangerment and meeting took place between 20 August and 14 December 2022. The worker’s complaints were not upheld.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties, both written and orally at the hearing.

The independent investigation concluded that discriminatory remarks had been made when the worker was present. It is unclear as to whether it thought they were made directly to the worker. However, it concluded the remarks were wholly inappropriate. The worker says he thought they were directed at him as his wife is a member of the traveller community. Although the investigation did not recommend any action the employer says that the ASO was told by a Senior Fire Officer that the remarks were unacceptable, he undertook mandatory training and apologised to the worker. The worker says this was the first time he was aware the ASO was spoken to and undertook mandatory training. He also says that he spoke to the ASO in vague terms but there was no apology. It is my view that the worker also needs to acknowledge that he contributed to the strained relationship with his own reaction to some events.

In looking at all the information given I have to conclude that the employer did not deal with the discriminatory remarks made by the ASO in a satisfactory manner. Also, they are aware of a difficult relationship between the worker and the ASO and have not taken action to try and repair the relationship.

I do not recommend a re-investigate, as I consider the initial investigations do not warrant this. Also, I do not consider this would be the best means to deal with the current situation.

I recommend that the ASO is asked to write to the employer regarding his comments and apologising for his behaviour, if he feels it is appropriate. This letter should be delivered in person with someone not involved in these issues to date present who should encourage the two to discuss what happened and their future working relationship.

I also recommend the employer facilitates a discussion among all the fire fighters in this station to allow views to be aired and for commitments to future working relationships to be agreed. Again, this should be facilitated by someone not involved in these issues to date.

Finally, I do not think the effect of the discriminatory remarks on the worker has been properly considered or acknowledged. There appears to have been too much thinking that the remarks were made generally and not as to how they may have been perceived by the worker individually (or any other worker). The worker is married to a member of the Traveller Community and the ASO knew this. I do not think the ASO could have not been aware of the effect of his remarks on the worker. The employer should have considered this and taken more appropriate action. In these circumstances I recommend the award of compensation to the worker of €5,000.

Compensation for discriminatory comments.