ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00002488
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Worker | A Charity Shop |
Representatives |
| Brian Joyce IBEC |
Dispute(s):
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 - 00002488 | 15/04/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | IR - SC - 00002489 | 15/04/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | IR - SC - 00002490 | 15/04/2024 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Date of Hearing: 07/08/2024
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended) following the referral of the dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute(s).
Background:
The Worker was employed on a CE scheme for a short period of time with the Employer. He brought a number of complaints under the industrial relations act related to his employment and his termination. A hearing was held on the 7th of August. At the hearing the Worker outlined that he was not interested in compensation but wanted to pursue a fair solution that would benefit workers in general. The Employer representative indicated that they were happy to engage with this. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The Worker was subjected to a form of bullying he refers to a psycho terrorism. He accepts that this is not a widely used phrase but refers to a person being psychologically isolated due to the conduct of others. He accepts that the Employer’s Dignity at Work policy addresses these issues though it uses different terminology. However, he is extremely concerned that these policies are not actually implemented and that people are victimised if they try to raise issues under these policies. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Employer is happy to undergo a review of their dignity at work policy and arrange updated training for all managers on that policy. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
The parties have showed a real willingness to engage with each other and I am satisfied that the Employer has listened to the Worker’s concerns. Having considered both parties views on these matters I believe the Employer should review their Dignity at Work policy and update that policy as they deem appropriate. That exercise should be concluded by the 1st of November 2024. The Employer should then arrange updated training on the Dignity at Work policy for all managers in the organisation, with a particular emphasis on preventing victimisation of complainants. That training should happen no later than the 31st of January 2025. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I recommend that the Employer review their Dignity at Work policy and update that policy as they deem appropriate. I recommend that that exercise should be concluded by the 1st of November 2024.
I further recommend that the Employer should arrange updated training on the Dignity at Work policy for all managers in the organisation, with a particular emphasis on preventing victimisation of complainants. I recommend that that training should happen no later than the 31st of January 2025.
Dated: 08-08-24
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Key Words:
|