ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00001239
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Security Officer | A Security Company |
Representatives | Self-Represented | Unrepresented at hearing / correspondence received from Employer and Mr Maguire of Conor Maguire & Co Solicitors |
Dispute:
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 - 00001239 | 03/04/2023 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Date of Hearing: 05/09/2023
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended)following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute.
Background:
The issue concerns the alleged Bullying and Harassment of the Worker in relation to personal issues by the Employer and in particular the Supervisor. The Worker felt unable to return to work with the Employer following a period of sick leave. A text dated the 13th April 2023 confirms this. At the date of the Hearing the Worker was employed (since 1st July 2023) by another Security Company. The rate of pay was stated to be €516.38 for a 42.5-hour week. |
1: Summary of Workers Case:
The Worker gave an Oral testimony supported by extensive copy Text Messages and a Certified Translation of a Phone Call. He maintained that he had been working without issue until on or about the 29th March 2023. He was contacted by his Assistant Manager, Mr N, to discuss a Personal Issue about which the Client Company staff members had complained. The Employer Company Manager had asked Mr N to handle the issue as he was of the same ethnic /cultural background as the Worker and spoke a common language -Punjabi. A very disputed phone call between Mr N and the Worker took place on or about the 1st April 2023. In this call various allegation were made against the Worker based on reported complaints from the client Company. The Complaints were relayed by a Punjabi Worker of the Client Company, a Mr R. The Phone conversation was recorded covertly by the Worker. He alleged that the recording displayed a completely unnecessary intimidatory tone by Mr M towards the Worker. Allegations of “I will break your head” were stated to have been made by Mr N. Various Text messages were also exchanged which were also intimidatory. Copies were presented in evidence. The upshot from the phone call and the text messages was that the Worker felt completely intimidated and went on Sick Leave. He did not return to the Employer. He maintained that he had been subject to gross Harassment by Mr N. |
2: Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Employer did not attend the Hearing in person. Document were submitted on his behalf on the 11th and the 27th May 2023. In this correspondence he pointed to the fact that the Record of the Disputed phone call was made without the permission of Mr N. This was a complete breach of privacy and furthermore the “Record” was largely an invention by the Worker. It was a Punjabi Language call translated to English. In any event the Employer absolutely denied that Mr N had in any way intimidated the Worker in what was a very delicate Personal issue for the Worker. As the Employer did not attend the Hearing his evidence could not be challenged or cross examined by the Worker. |
3: Conclusions:
The Employer did not attend the Hearing. Accordingly, his submitted correspondence cannot be wholly relied upon as it was not possible for the Worker to cross examine this alleged evidence. The Worker submitted detailed copy text messages between himself and Mr N. It was clear from this that a heated discussion had taken place in the Punjabi language and Text messages in basic English. The basic issue of complaint, the Personal issue, against the Worker would be challenging in any Language.
Most Managers would find it quite embarrassing to deal with.
Having read the text messages submitted and looked at the disputed phone call it was clear from an Adjudication view point that Employer/Employee policies in this area could be looked at to see if some improvements might be made. More Supervisory training could be useful.
The issue in Dispute was a difficult personal issue. Cultural issues in how it was handled between two Punjabi language employees and the Client Employee also a Punjabi speaker certainly coloured the issue.
None the less the effective resignation of the Employee by never going back to work for the Employer was in common understanding an unwarranted reaction. The Employer never actually terminated the Worker.
The correspondence did not really fit in with normal accepted definitions of Harassment. Codes of Practice from the Health and Safety Authority and the WRC can be referred to for definitions.
The Worker stated in oral testimony that he had had to take a period of personal time at his home in in Pakistan, after the 13th April, for a stated Depression episode. This was offered as a mitigating factor.
|
4: Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
The Worker in this case was clearly at the loss of proper advice in this Case.
The basic facts as presented described a dispute between a Worker and his Supervisor regarding a complaint made by a client company.
The Employer did not attend the Hearing so any evidence given by him in his correspondence could only be seen as, at best, unchallenged Hearsay.
The very disputed Phone Call is not in itself, even if accepted, despite the Privacy Complaint of the Supervisor, the worst phone call ever made between a Supervisor and a Worker.
The Worker had effectively left the Employment to return to Pakistan. He then returned to Ireland to take up a new Security Position with another Company.
The only possible Recommendation under the Industrial Relations Act,1969 is that.
- The Employer examine again his Supervisory Training especially as regards possible allegations of Bulling/harassment.
- The Worker to be advised to seek, if a similar situation ever arose again, the services /advice of a body such as the Citizens Advice Service.
Dated: 18th of January 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Key Words:
Harassment/Bullying, Disputed Phone calls. |