Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

General Services Supervisor

Public Service Provider

Representatives

Amanda Kane,                                    Management Agency .                                     Brian Coughlan,                                   HR Department.

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 - 00001505

26/04/2023

This hearing was conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road, Dublin. In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) the hearing was conducted in recognition of the fact that all hearings (whether informal or formal) should be conducted fairly. The hearing was not conducted in public as it concerned a dispute brought under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969.

Industrial Relations disputes are primarily heard on the basis of factual and/or legal submissions provided by the respective parties. Relevant parties might be invited to give an oral recollection of events, facts and matters within their knowledge. Testimony may be subject to rebuttal by witnesses or other relevant evidence provided by the other side.

The Specific Details of the Dispute are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 26th of April 2023.

As the within matter is a dispute between parties and brought before the WRC using the Industrial Relations Acts it was heard in private and the recommendation is anonymised.

The Complainant was not represented and made his own case. The Complainant was accompanied by a colleague who presented alongside him and who was there to support the Complainant/worker. In advance of the hearing the Complainant had set out a detailed chronology of events which represented the timeline which brought the Complainant to the point at which he issued his complaint form. At the hearing the Complainant provided me with a typed statement which set out the impact this dispute has had on the Complainant.  I was provided with supplemental documentary evidence in support of the Complainant’s case. No objection was raised to any of the materials relied upon by the Complainant in making his case.

The Complainant alleges that he was unfairly treated when a decision was made to transfer the Complainant from one area to another without reference to the Complainant.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute. 

The Respondent entity was represented by a HR Manager together with a member of a Management Agency.  The Respondent provided me with a written submissions dated March 1st 2024. No objection was raised in connection with any of the documentary evidence relied upon by the Respondent in the course of making its case.

The Respondent rejects that there has been a Constructive Dismissal and does not accept any contravention of Employment Rights as protected by statute.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute.

I have carefully listened to the evidence adduced by both sides in the course of this hearing. The Complainant has worked most of his working life with the Respondent entity. It is a sign of his commitment and trustworthiness that the Complainant was put in charge of managing almost 17 members of staff when he was promoted to the role of General Services Supervisor in and around 1999. Both the HR Manager on behalf of the Respondent and the Complainant himself agreed that there was issue within the workforce over which the Complainant had management.

In general terms I accept that the particular group of Employees (in the depot wherein they worked from) did not have any issue with the Complainant himself but that there were interpersonal difficulties between two foremen working under the Complainant and that the tension created by these two individuals was feeding down the ranks seemingly creating a difficult workplace for all involved.

The Complainant explained that he felt that he had never been given adequate training in the area of dispute resolution even though as an appointed manager one would have thought that having this skill would have been desirous and expected. In the circumstances, the Complainant described himself to have been in unenviable position of trying to manage and placate his team members without any real understanding or knowledge of how best to approach this.  I completely understand that the Complainant did not want to have to remonstrate with members of his team – including the two foremen creating the trouble. The Complainant anticipated that there was almost an inevitability to his being accused of bullying if he challenged some of the behaviour. Some workplaces appear to attract just such defensive push back, and the Complainant gave the impression that this was one. In the circumstances the Complainant ran his 17-person team with what might be described as light touch management.

At the hearing before me it seems that both sides agreed that the complainant was inclined to escalate interparty workplace disputes and other disciplinary issues straight up the line to his manager (the Area Manager) and ultimately to HR. In his evidence before me the Complainant confirmed that the felt that having HR deal with employee relationships and tensions was the most appropriate approach. His logic in this regard cannot be faulted.

There can be little doubt that the level of disquiet or dissatisfaction in this unit was an ongoing issue. This is demonstrated in particular by the unusual step taken by the Employer (in and around 2019) who engaged a third-party facilitator to try and cut through the problems and to try and eradicate the levels of toxicity which existed. I can imagine that there was a genuine belief with Management that engaging an outside expert (at presumably considerable expense) to come in and work with the entire team (including the Complainant) with a view to resolving issues and /or try and overcome past grievances and move forward, would have some success.

As I understand it the said Facilitator/ Mediator did not report back to Management, and nor was she directed to. The idea was that the sessions and workshops conducted with the staff were intended to bring about some changes at local level through discussion and conciliation.

The Complainant seemed somewhat perplexed by this notion. It seems that he had expected that the Facilitator would issue a report with findings and clear directives as to future behaviour and interactions. I think perhaps that the Complainant wanted it made clear that no fault lay with him.

It is not therefore clear to me that the facilitation process initiated by the employer had any beneficial effect. Certainly, neither party before me was able to point to any tangible change or benefit. In fact, it seems that the bad atmosphere coupled with perceived ineffectual management was still an issue for Management higher up the line.

I am satisfied that it was in these circumstances that Management at a Senior Engineering level made the decision to move the Complainant out of his depot and move another General Services Supervisor into his role. It was a direct swop. This was an entirely lateral move, and I am satisfied it had no effect on the Complainant’s seniority or remuneration, and he confirmed this with me. I do note that the Complainant was moving to a bigger depot, but he would be supervising only one of two areas. He had previously been supervising two areas albeit in a smaller depot. There is no suggestion that the Complainant’s role was diminished in any way. The Complainant was advised of the move in February 2020. Needless to say, there is a comprehensive mobility clause in the Contract of Employment and the Employer has made the case that it was well within its rights to make the move.

However, it is clear that the complainant was incredibly upset that he had been seemingly singled out for what he perceived to be a punitive move. It seemed to the Complainant that he was being blamed for the rancour that existed amongst his colleagues in the workplace. I am advised by the Respondent that this was never the thinking behind the move. The decision was not made in isolation they said. It was felt that the facilitation/mediation process had had no positive effect, and it was hoped that the newly rotated in GSS would bring a fresh start from the top down. The Complainant believed that the facilitator/mediator had somehow directed this outcome and that the decision was made in consequence of the process which he felt he had entered into on a voluntary basis.

The Complainant did raise a Grievance later that same year and I have read the outcome of same where it was conceded that the workshop process conducted by the mediator/facilitator had no impact whatsoever on the decision to rotate the two GSS positions. I am inclined to accept this assertion though I note that the Complainant does not accept same.

I should also note that the Employer indicated that the Complainant’s replacement had demonstrated excellent people management skills in the past. This was a definite requirement where he was going. The Complainant’s inability to properly manage people together with his reliance on escalating matters up to the line Manager and HR mitigated against him in the final analysis. The Complainant says that the failure by management to offer him adequate training (in management and dispute resolution) was used, therefore, as a stick to beat him with. I find I do accept this part of his Grievance before me. To my mind the Employer should have, in the very first instance, identified the gap in the Complainant’s training and upskilled him. The Complainant was not told there was a problem with his performance and was not given a chance to improve his performance. Instead, the complainant was moved position in a manner that (for him) had all the hallmarks of a punishment.

I note that the complainant has since been offered an opportunity to go on a line Management course (as of November 2021). For reasons only he can know, the Complainant refused this offer.

The Complainant read out a pre-prepared and very moving impact statement. It is clear that the Complainant has been badly affected by what appeared to him to have been an injustice perpetrated on him. Whilst I have every sympathy for the Complainant, I do not think that the Employer has acted entirely unreasonably. I have understood the rationale though have identified that there has been bluntness in the implementation that has impacted the Complainants’ confidence.

I am pleased to note that the workplace has a Staff Welfare Officer as well as an Employee Assistance Programme.  

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. I have taken the time to carefully review all the evidence both written and oral.  I have noted the respective position of the parties.  I am not required to provide a line-by-line assessment of the evidence and submissions that I have rejected or deemed superfluous to the main findings.  I am guided by the reasoning in Faulkner v. The Minister for Industry and Commerce [1997] E.L.R. 107 where it was held “…minute analysis or reasons are not required to be given by administrative tribunals...the duty on administrative tribunals to give reasons in their decisions is not a particularly onerous one.  Only broad reasons need be given…”.