Worker

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

An Airline

Representatives

Dermot O Loughlin Alpha Employment Representation Services

In House Counsel

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00053957-001

01/12/2022

The worker commenced  employment with the within employer on the 22nd of June 1998 and continued in that employment at the time of this hearing.   

The worker raised a formal Grievance in in January 2020 in relation to what she believed were significant breaches of respect and dignity in the workplace against her.  In addition to the  grievance matters the worker only received the outcome to the formal process on the 10th of November 2022, which she believes itself exasperated the grievance.  Furthermore, the worker does not accept the finding of the company’s investigation and appeal.

The Employer acknowledges that the grievance process took longer than it should have and attributes this firstly to the onset of Covid which affected the respondent organisation from February 2020 and the second reason for further delay was due to the fact that one of the main witnesses took early maternity leave from March 2020.

The Worker referred a claim to the WRC on 01/12/2022 under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. 

The worker, Ms. P was employed as a business Trainer, in a part time role working 5 days a fortnight for a number of years.    Ms. P submits that on 1 February 2017 she received a phone call from the employer stating that they now needed a full-time business trainer, and that the worker would be given first refusal on this role and also stated that if the worker did not take up this offer, she would be put back on the floor working as an agent.   Ms. P was also advised that if this happened, the worker would have to return to  working weekends and bank holidays & that there would be no guarantees as regards her hours.   This would have the effect of changing her pattern of attendance, as had been agreed per her contract of employment.

The worker had agreed her  current employment contract in July 2009 which stated that she  would work a 5-day fortnight, which would be reflected in her pay, annual leave, and pension entitlements.   It was also granted that the worker would work the days opposite to her Husband.  The worker submits that she was not in a position to return to full time work as she had caring responsibilities for her elderly parent and for her brother who is disabled.

Following her refusal of the full-time position, on 3rd of April 2018 the worker had to reluctantly step down as business trainer and commenced a new role on the floor as an agent.   She submits that she had only 4 days' notice of this change, which also meant a reduction in her grade & a change to her pattern of attendance which she had been working for 9 years.

In May 2018 the worker went on certified sick leave due to stress caused by her personal family life.  Her Mother was unwell and her Brother who is disabled was also unwell.   Her G.P. advised that she was on the verge of a breakdown.  She was put on medication because of high blood pressure and  medication was also prescribed to help her relax.

Over the next few months, the worker attended Med mark a number of times at the employer’s request.

In December 2018, the worker was rostered outside of her usual work pattern of 5 days per fortnight.   This would affect her workdays and time off over the Christmas period.  The worker could not change her work pattern due to her caring responsibilities and especially not over the Christmas period.   She raised this with her manager Ms. C who told her that the change was going to stand.    She advised her manager that she would have to raise the matter with the union as it was a change to her contracted hours.

An hour later her manager phoned her and advised that the roster had been changed back  to reflect her 5-day fortnight roster over the 2018 Christmas period.  The worker received written confirmation of this by email on 17th of December 2018.

It is submitted that on 24th of December a Duty Manager advised the worker that her line manager Ms. C  had specified that the worker was not to be allowed to finish up early on Christmas Eve  in contrast to other staff members in the area being allowed to finish early on other days respectively.   The Duty Manager allowed the worker to finish early that day as she thought it was only fair that that the worker get the same treatment as the other members of staff.  As a consequence of this decision by the Duty Manager, the Duty Manager got reprimanded by Ms. C.

On 11th of September 2019 the worker phoned in sick due to severe back pain.  Her Doctor sent her for an M.R.I scan, this M.R.I scan showed gallstones and a collapsed womb. Since this absence, it was submitted that Ms. C ignored the worker in the office.

The worker in October 2019 advised her line manager, Ms. C by email  that after attending her Consultant she had been booked in for surgery on the 6 December 2019.

On 6th of December 2019 the worker received a call from work while she was being prepped for an operation which was pre booked and which she had advised her employer about six weeks previously.   

The workers husband answered her phone and was asked by a Duty Manager who identified herself as Ms. L why the worker was not at work.  Ms. P’s husband explained the situation and was then asked by the DM if the worker would be submitting a medical cert and when it would be submitted.

The worker had already notified her employer in advance of the surgery and in fact the DM, Ms L had wished her the best of luck with it the previous week.

It is submitted that this phone call 1 hour prior to her surgery made a very upsetting and worrying situation much worse for the worker and her husband.  This whole incident has had a hugely upsetting effect on the worker prior to and post her surgery & subsequent recovery.

This was the final straw which made the worker submit a grievance with good faith that a full investigation would be done and that there would be an outcome in a timely manner.

It is submitted that as of 17th of May 2022 the worker was still in the same place as she had been in 2020 but by this time was very upset and could not believe the lies that were written about her. 

It is submitted that the Worker joined Employer organisation on 22 June 1998 and is currently employed as a Business Trainer/Coach in the Customer Department.    She submitted a grievance to the Company on 20th January 2020 relating to several matters dating back to 2017.

 An independent manager was appointed to conduct the investigation of the complaints received and the process commenced with a meeting with the Worker and the investigator on 6 February 2020.     A detailed investigation report was issued to the Worker on 2 July 2022 along with a letter of apology from the Investigator acknowledging the significant delays that had occurred in the process.

The report which issued in respect of the grievance made detailed findings in respect of each of the matters raised by the Worker .

In line with the internal grievance procedure, the Worker was afforded a right of appeal which she exercised.   She submitted her grounds of appeal on 25 July 2022 and an appeal hearing took place before an independent manager on 29 August 2022. The appeal outcome issued on 10 November 2022 marking the conclusion of the internal grievance process.

Of note is that a core component of the appeal was related to the delays in the first stage of the grievance investigation. The appeal manager upheld this aspect of the grievance and found as follows: “I acknowledged this ground within the appeal hearing and agreed that the duration of time in which the report took to issue was unsatisfactory. Albeit I too acknowledge that there were variables outside of (the Investigators) control that caused unforeseen setbacks and delays. However, taking it into full consideration, I do uphold your ground of appeal regarding this although Mr.L’s request for financial compensation in regard to this matter is denied at this time.”

Those involved in the grievance process have already acknowledged the significant delays that took place in the first stage of the process and have apologised for same.

 It is submitted that a principle of the Employer organisation’s Grievance Procedure is to have grievances dealt with substantively and without undue delay.   It is submitted that it has not happened in this case and for that, the employer wishes to apologise once again to the Worker on behalf of all involved.

The worker Ms. P outlined her claim to the hearing.  The worker told the hearing that she has worked for the employer for 25 years.

Ms. P advised the hearing that she is an honest worker and always has and still has great pride in working for the respondent but what happened since 2017 has in her opinion indicated to her that employer does not have the same loyalty towards her.    The worker stated that she has been demoralized in her job and was left with no other option but to accept a demotion from her position as Trainer and return to the call centre following pressure to increase from part time to full time hours in 2017/2018.

The worker advised the hearing that she had agreed her  current employment contract in July 2009 which stated that she  would work a 5-day fortnight, which would be reflected in her pay, annual leave, and pension entitlements.   It was also granted that the worker would work the days opposite to her Husband. 

The worker told the hearing that she was not in a position to return to full time work as she had caring responsibilities for her elderly parents and for her brother who is disabled.

The worker stated that she had reluctantly accepted the demotion to the call centre  where she was put sitting beside the duty manager's desk, where it is known that people who are seated in that position need to be supervised.

The worker told the hearing that the final straw came in December 2019 when she received a phone call from work while she was being prepped for an operation which was pre booked and which she had advised her employer about six weeks previously.    The worker told the hearing that the caller even when reminded that the worker was about to go into surgery proceeded to ask the workers husband if she would be submitting a sick cert and when this would be provided.   The worker states that this was the final straw after 20 years of loyal service and it prompted her to submit a grievance with good faith that a full investigation would be done and that there would be an outcome in a timely manner.   As at 17th of May 2022 the worker was still in the same place as she had been in 2020 but by this time, she was very upset and could not believe the lies that had been written about her. 

The worker stated that the employer’s investigation into her grievance was a long and drawn-out process which caused her huge stress stating that she had often received communications late on a Friday evening which in turn ruined the weekend ahead for her.  

The employer at the hearing did not deny that the investigation of the complainant’s grievance was a long and drawn-out process and apologised for the length of time taken.  The employer stated that It is the case that there were significant and unforeseen delays in the internal investigation process as a result of several different factors to include witness unavailability because of statutory leave but principally and as a direct consequence of the Covid19 pandemic which necessitated a pause on all case management processes for a period of time and led to the unavailability of the investigator to conclude the process for an extended period.   

 The employer told the hearing that the Investigator had apologised in writing to the complainant for the delays in the investigation process.   In addressing some of the other matters raised by the worker the employer stated that they had sent her emails on a Friday evening at times but that this was in a bid to provide her with information or an update before the end of the week so as that she would not have to wait until after the weekend.    The employer explained that the request for the complainant to move to full time hours and the subsequent demotion was due to a legitimate Business need for a full time Business Trainer and while they acknowledge that the worker was not in a position to increase her hours, they state that she was offered first refusal on this full-time position before being returned to the call centre.  As regards the attempt to change the workers Christmas roster in December 2018 the employer states that the worker raised the matter with her manager and that her original roster was then restored. 

 The worker acknowledged that her roster was restored but stated that this should not have been taken from her in the first place and added that having to fight for the hours she was entitled to was stressful especially given that she had caring responsibilities for her parents and her brother who has special needs, and she could not at short notice make other arrangements especially during the Christmas period.    In response to the matter of the phone call to the worker on the 6th of December  when she was being prepped for surgery, the employer acknowledged that this should not have happened and acknowledge that the complainant had notified them well in advance of the surgery.

The worker stated that she would like a sincere letter of apology for everything that has happened to her and her family since 2017.   The worker also stated that she would like to be compensated for all the stress that she has endured due to the treatment she had experienced and due to the long delays on the part of the employer in dealing with her grievance which served to compound an already stressful situation.   The employer at the hearing did not deny that the investigation of the complainant’s grievance was a long and drawn-out process and apologised for the length of time taken.  The employer stated that It is the case that there were significant and unforeseen delays in the internal investigation process as a result of several different factors to include witness unavailability because of statutory leave but principally and as a direct consequence of the Covid19 pandemic.  The employer at the hearing stated that it would have no hesitation in writing a letter of apology to the worker and would be happy to do so.   The worker requested that she be treated with the respect and dignity that she has earned over 25 years of working for the employer.  

Having considered this matter, I find in favour of the worker and accordingly I  recommend as follows:

1. That the Respondent should write a letter of apology to the worker.

2. That the Respondent should pay to the worker the sum of €2,500 as compensation for the distress caused to her.