Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Public Servant

A Public Service Organisation

Representatives

In- House Representation

In-House  Representation

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 - 00001406

24/05/2023

The Worker claims that the email in which  she raised a  grievance about working conditions was distributed to other members of management, and subsequently to all members of staff in her particular area. She claims this caused her great distress and is seeking a recommendation that upholds her grievance and acknowledges the distress which  she claims was due to  inappropriate dissemination of her email.

The Employer claims it  has acted fairly and ensured that the Worker’s complaint was fully investigated by management  at three separate stages of the complaint process. The Employer submits it  gave reasoned, written decisions following each stage and therefore the Workplace Relations Commission should not find in favour of the Worker.

On 18  May  2022 the Worker  communicated her significant concerns about the operations at her specific workplace  to her supervisor via email. Concurrently, two of her colleagues also expressed similar concerns through separate emails. These emails, including the Worker’s,  were subsequently forwarded to her Manager, Ms A,  through proper channels.

On 24  May  2022, Ms A  communicated  to the supervisors on changes in working conditions , with an attachment of the Worker’s email. Consequently, a supervisor  within the work area  distributed Ms A’s  email, with the Worker’s attachment, to all the Worker’s colleagues in the area where she worked.

The Worker submits that due to Ms A’s inclusion of her  email in the   correspondence, she (the Worker)  faced negative feedback from her colleagues locally. She claims that this situation caused her considerable stress due to work-related issues stemming from the dissemination of her email without her consent.

The Worker  initiated the internal dispute resolution process and expressed willingness to engage in mediation. She also initially sought an apology from Ms A. Ms A refused to engage in mediation nor proffer an apology. The formal grievance was filed by the Worker on 12 June 2022 and progressed through the three designated stages. Initially, an informal resolution was considered and agreed upon on 12  July  2022 through the office of Mr B. However, on 29  December 2022, Mr B  notified Mr C,  the next senior manager,  that an informal resolution was unattainable.

The case then advanced to Stage 2 on 29 December  2022, under the supervision of Mr C. He ruled in favour of the Worker, although no specific recommendation was provided. Subsequently, the Worker escalated the matter  to Stage 3 on 21  February 2023, where Ms D, executive manager, reviewed the case. Following a meeting with the Worker on 27 March  2023, Ms D did not uphold her grievance.

The Worker submits that  had Ms A directly communicated with her at the beginning regarding her report and potential actions to address it, she  believes the report would not have been linked to new work practices, and the highlighted concerns could have been addressed confidentially. The Worker argues that a conversation with her could have defused the situation and corrected any mistakes. After the  incident involving Ms A  in  May 2022, the Worker suffered associated stress and subsequently visited her GP, reporting sick and non-effective for work on 1 June 2022. She remained unfit for work  due to work-related stress until 31 August 2022.

In conclusion, the Worker requests a recommendation  affirming the complaint is well founded with an acknowledgement by the Employer  that the incident should not have happened and accepting the negative effects it has had on the Worker.

Ms A  addressed the raised concerns by issuing specific instructions to ensure proper handling of staffing issues. She communicated these instructions via email to the supervisors. Within her email, she acknowledged and commended the three employees who had raised the concerns, including the Worker. Contrary to the Worker’s assertion  where it was suggested that she  did not anticipate her report being shared with all her colleagues, the Employer submits that Ms A's email was indeed directed only to the supervisors.

The Employer submits that  after sending the email to the supervisors, a supervisor (Mr E)  forwarded Ms A's email to colleagues  with the note 'FYI'. Therefore, the Employer contends  it was Mr E  who shared the Ms A's email with the Worker’s colleagues, however, Mr E  was not the focus of the Worker's complaint.

The grievance  underwent a comprehensive investigation involving three members of management. The final decision by Ms D  dismissed her grievance based on several reasons: Firstly, it was Mr E , not Mr A, who shared the email with other colleagues of the Worker. Secondly, there was no wrongdoing on Ms A's part in sending her email to the supervisors . The Employer submits that the Worker  could not provide evidence of the negative remarks she alleged to have experienced. Lastly, the Worker did not mark her correspondence as 'Private & Confidential' if she intended to keep her complaint confidential.

The Employer submits  that the  claim lacks merit as all internal procedures  have been followed. A thorough investigation into the claimant's complaint was conducted, leading to Ms D not upholding the complaint at the final stage. The Respondent opened Bord Gais Eireann v a Worker AD1377 where the Labour Court stated that “It is not the function of the Court to form a view on the merits of complaints giving rise to those investigations nor can it substitute its views for those of the investigators appointed in either case. Rather, the role of the Court is to establish if the procedures used by the Company conformed to the generally accepted standard of fairness and objectivity that would normally be used in cases such as these.”

The Employer  argues that the complaint was thoroughly investigated, and the Worker was afforded fair procedures throughout therefore it contends the claim must fail.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. I accept the Employer’s contention that it is not my role to investigate the substantive issue of the  complaint but instead to determine whether the Employer followed its procedures and conformed to the accepted standard of fairness and objectivity that normally would be used in cases such as these, as advised by the Labour Court in Bord Gais.

The Employer opened the individual internal grievance  procedure at the hearing,  and I note that it relates to any standard employment relations issue, and how it might affect the particular individual.  The Worker’s  initial email to her supervisor, which in turn was passed on to Ms A, related to a  request for a risk assessment for her work area in line with the Safety, Health, and Welfare at Work Act 2005, particularly with reference to working conditions. Significantly, the email clearly gave the impression that the Worker was writing on behalf of a group of workers, with particular emphasis on the pronoun ‘we.’ Had it related to a personal issue then it would have  attracted the protection of confidentiality, as explicitly referred to in the internal grievance procedure. Indeed, there is a separate procedure for collective grievances where no such confidentiality is required. Therefore, I am satisfied that from the outset the publication of the email in the manner described could be described as unsatisfactory, and possibly unnecessary, but  it did not fundamentally breach the Employer’s duty of confidentiality that is integral to an individual pursuance of a grievance. In any organisation, the origins of a request  for a risk assessment under Health and Safety law  would ordinarily be expected to be shared with middle management, with the implicit  understanding that no further dissemination of this information is required. However, it was uncontested in this case that the actual individual who disseminated the Workers email, Mr E, was not the target for the grievance. Furthermore, I am satisfied that full and fair procedures were employed. The Worker could not realistically expose a flaw in fairness nor objectivity, but instead focussed on a perceived requirement of confidentiality, which I could not find.

I have the greatest sympathy for the Worker in this case and I do not doubt that she sent  her original email out of concern for the conditions under which she and her colleagues were working. Furthermore,  I do not doubt that she was deeply upset to find out that the email had been distributed amongst her colleagues. However, I find Ms D’s conclusions were detailed, rational and proportionate, based on a reasonable  assessment that Ms A had not breached any perceived duty of confidentiality. Therefore, I recommend that  the Worker would  accept the outcome of the grievance  procedure.

s.13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, Duty of Confidentiality, Grievance Procedure.