Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

An Operative

A large organisation

Representatives

Cormac Ó Dáiligh CWV Communications Workers Union

Brian Hallisey BL

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 - 00002333

05/03/2024

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

IR - SC - 00002334

05/03/2024

The worker was engaged as an operative in a large organisation. He was moved from one workplace to another on foot of a disciplinary sanction. The worker has two complaints: firstly, a complaint in relation to disciplinary sanctions up to and including dismissal (CA-00062058-001) and secondly a complaint regarding bullying and harassment procedure (CA-00062058-002).  A remote hearing of the case took place on 29 May 2024. 

On foot of a compulsory transfer sanction being impose, the worker was transferred from one workplace (approximately five minutes from his home) to another workplace which was far less convenient for him.  This sanction was imposed on the worker following an investigation carried out by Mr A, who at the time was the region HR Manager.

The investigation was carried out following complaints made by the worker and counter complaints made by a colleague of his.  The worker raised his concerns about his colleague’s behaviour on many occasions, but no action was ever taken.

The worker submits that when he raised issues about his colleague’s behaviour the tables were turned, and he became the subject of an investigation. He was told that he had a last chance to modify his behaviour when it was he who had raised concerns and there had never been any issues raised with him about his behaviour up to this point.

The worker noticed that several of his colleagues who were friendly with the colleague about whom he had raised concerns began to ignore him and began making his life difficult at work. He raised this matter with a manager, but he was not happy at how it was treated.

Following an incident with the colleague with whom he had been experiencing problems in July 2022, the worker lodged a formal complaint with HR. After an eight-week wait a meeting about the incident took place. However, once again it was the worker himself who was made out to be the problem and he was threatened with suspension without pay.

In October 2022, HR wrote to the worker informing him that he was being issued with a second level written warning and was being transferred to another workplace.

The worker contends that he has not been treated fairly by his employer.  He believes the company’s disciplinary procedures have not been followed correctly and the procedure was unfair.  He has asked that the sanctions imposed be overturned.

The worker provided documents to support his case.

A witness for the worker stated at the hearing that he attended a meeting with the worker and the HR Manager and was surprised it seemed to centre more about the worker’s behaviour than the issues the worker had raised. He did agree that the worker was allowed state his case at the meeting and that the HR manager had said he would investigate the matter.

A second witness for the worker stated that he had attended another meeting with HR as a representative for the worker.  He stated that he felt that the HR Manager had tried to goad the worker into losing his temper. This witness agreed that at the end of this meeting the worker had agreed to change his behaviours at work.

The employer submits that far from the worker being the subject of bullying, harassment, or victimisation, or that his complaints were not taken seriously, what in fact occurred was that following full investigations, the worker’s allegations against his co-workers were dismissed and the allegations made against him were upheld. The findings were made based on clear, cogent, and rational evidence and findings.  Those findings were upheld on appeal.

The employer submits that the investigation into complaints made by the worker against his co-workers were fully investigated. They were investigated in line with the company’s Dignity at Work policy. The sanction imposed upon him was fair and reasonable considering the findings made during the enquiries. The worker was afforded fair process, had access to union representation and availed of the opportunity to appeal the decision.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

Regarding CA-00062058-001

The allegations made against the worker were upheld following investigation.  A sanction was imposed and was subject of an appeal which upheld the legitimacy and appropriateness of the sanctions; they were not found to be unreasonable.

My view is that the sanctions imposed were not unreasonable in the circumstances and the correct procedures were followed.

Regarding CA-00062058-002.

No evidence was adduced to support the complaint that there was a flaw in how the allegations of bullying and harassment made by the worker were dealt with by the employer.

Dignity at Work, investigation