Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Salesperson

A Sports Shop

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 - 00001994

19/11/2023

The complainant, who is still in full time education worked part time for the respondent.

He described to the hearing an exchange on a busy September 9th, 2023 during which he alleges his store manager bullied and behaved aggressively towards him, alleging that he (the complainant) would be responsible for him losing his job.

A further conversation between the pair failed to resolve the issue and he brought it to the attention of management on that day.

He thought that this was sufficient to trigger the grievance process although he accepted that he was told that he would have to submit a grievance at the meeting on September 15th.

He said that there had been a build-up of incidents over the previous month.

He also said that the incident had a bad effect on him and he could not attend for work and face the manager in question.

The complainant has alleged that he was being bullied by his manager. He reported this issue to his Operations Manager (OM) and HR and alleges that the issue was not dealt with, and he had a meeting with Operations to explain his issues. The complainant has stated that due to the perceived lack of action taken he has had to leave the workplace because of how much it effected his mental health.

Workplace bullying as defined in our company Dignity at Work Policy is:

“Repeated inappropriate behaviour, direct or indirect, whether verbal, physical or otherwise, conducted by one or more persons against another or others, at the place of work and/or in the course of employment, which could be reasonably regarded as undermining the individual’s right to dignity at work. An isolated incident of the behaviour described in this definition may be an affront to dignity at work, but, as a once off incident, is not considered to be bullying”. A key characteristic of bullying is that it usually takes place over a period of time.

The company disputes the claim that he was being bullied by his manager or that the issue was not dealt with.  Furthermore, he  did not exhaust all avenues made available to him before he resigned.

The complainant first raised concerns with our OM via an email, relating to an incident in a store on September 9th, 2023 between the complainant and the then store manager. A meeting was arranged on September 15th,  2023 to address these concerns.

September 9th, 2023 was the first occasion that the respondent was made aware of any issues between the parties. From commencement on December 1st,2021 up to September 9th, 2023, no issues were raised by him  about the store manager and the store manager had never raised issues about him

A statement was also requested from the store manager relating to the incident. Statements would have been shared with both parties during the investigation and clarifications sought, had the formal grievance process been utilised.

CCTV footage of a number of interactions referenced in statements of 9th September were submitted.

During the meeting on the 15th, which the complainant  attended with his mother, he  was adamant that he could not go back in and work with the store manager.  He was advised of the necessity to use the company’s formal grievance process on numerous occasions. Due to depth of his feelings, the OM felt that an informal approach would not work on this occasion.

The company hoped that the issues could be resolved, and that the complainant  would remain in employment. He was offered a Sunday shift as the store manager did not work on this day, but this did not suit due to sporting commitments.

The complainant  confirmed during this meeting that he did eventually wish to leave his position for personal reasons, but he did not want to leave in the way he was leaving. The complainant  advised that he did not want to work with the Store Manager and the situation was mentally draining but that he would take the weekend to think about things and let the OM know by Monday 18th September 2023.

He did not do so but we followed up later September 18th, to see if he had reconsidered.

The complainant replied on September 19th, 2023 to advise that he was awaiting to see how ‘the next stage’ would work out. The company hoped that the  reference to the next stage meant he was considering a formal grievance. The grievance process was further reiterated in an email to the complainant  on the 20th September 2023.

However, this did not happen as the complainant  was still only willing to return if the store manager wasn’t there. The final correspondence from The complainant  relating to his concerns arising from the 9thSeptember 2023, was an email to Ian on the 20th September 2023 thanking him for everything he did and for trying to help but this was not how The complainant  wanted to end.

After this date there was further communication regarding a request for a reference which was provided to The complainant  and a final email from The complainant  querying 1 day of annual leave owed to him. 

Ultimately the complainant  felt unable to return to work unless the store manager was not there and this is evident from notes and emails enclosed.  This desired outcome was not an option, particularly during these initial discussions, as fair procedures had to apply to all parties involved.

We required him  to submit a formal grievance in relation to the incident of September 9th, 2023 as well as issues raised during the meeting of September 15th, 2023 so we could investigate these in full. We could not compel the complainant  to do this, but we referenced this on several occasions. We hoped that the complainant  would remain in employment and that we could address and alleviate the pressures he was feeling.  

The complainant  describes the non-removal of the store manager as a lack of action and that the issue was not dealt with on our part.

However, he did not exhaust all avenues available to him and the OM’s immediate response, the meeting of September 15th, 2023, the guidance offered and all associated communications show that the company acted appropriately to address the issues.

The complainant  raised,  within what was a very short time frame from when the complainant ’s email was received on 9th September 2023 to his departure on the 19th September 2023; some eight days.

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

The respondent refers on a number of occasions to the complainant not having exhausted all internal processes.

In fact, he did not avail of them at all.

At the hearing he suggested that his first letter in which he said that he was bringing ‘something to the attention’ of the management represented a grievance. While that is a bit of a stretch, he was left in no doubt a few days later, on September 15th that it was not the way in which a grievance was required to be submitted,  and was explicitly told that a formal grievance would be required.

However, he refused to submit one, it appears in the expectation that his act of bringing something to the attention of the company would suffice to terminate his manager’s employment.

The complainant is training to be a referee and will understand more than most that rules apply evenly to all, and in particular, in this instance, the rules of fair procedure.

The right to a hearing of a complaint is equally balanced by the right of the person complained of to be accorded the same right to a hearing of his defence.

The requirement to submit a formal grievance is not therefore some minor technical requirement but fundamental to the operation of fairness in the workplace.

Add to this the additional requirement that the Adjudication service (and the Labour Court) will not intervene  when such procedures have not been exhausted then the eligibility of the complainant to any remedy is remote; leaving aside the fact that he was not very clear as to what remedy he was seeking.

For all these reasons the complaint fails and is dismissed.

Failure to use procedures