AMENDED ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00001131
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | An Employee | A Local Development Company |
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 - 00001131 | 28/02/2023 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Date of Hearing: 11/03/2024
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 Worker is employed with the Employer as an Employment Guidance Officer for 17 years. She has a number of disputes and complaints about her Employer. Specifically, she alleges that she was subjected to bullying and harassment.
Summary of Workers Case:
The Claimant is employed as an Employment Advisor with a local Development Company since 2007. In 2009 she developed a serious health problem. She also was unfortunately involved in two car accidents and had to avail of her sick leave entitlements. She contends that she was subject to constant bullying from her Employer regarding her sick leave absences. This treatment went on for years from 2009 when she was diagnosed with cancer and in the following years when she had unfortunately suffered car accidents and various other situations. She was provided with a new contract in 2022 and told she had to sign it, even though it contained changes to her terms and conditions of employment which were unacceptable to her.
In the case at hand, the Claimant had nowhere to turn in relation to grievances she wished to raise with her Employer. She points to earlier issues such as comments being made about her disability and previous absences due to serious illness, and comments such as sick leave not being a “target”. The Claimant also relies on other instances of bullying, intimidation and harassment that she experienced at the hands of the CEO specifically:
(a Threatening the Claimant with punishment or consequence should she not sign new terms of employment;
(b Subjecting the Claimant to verbal abuse, attack and harassment;
(c Making the workplace unbearable for the Claimant to carry out her duties;
(d Over-scrutinization of the Claimant’s work performance;
(e Withdrawal of the Claimant’s sick leave entitlements;
(f Intimidation and harassment of the Claimant to bully her into agreeing to new terms of employment;
(g Subjecting the Claimant to patronising snide comments on a regular basis, demeaning her.
- The incorrect hourly rate of pay.
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Claimant raised a complaint in 2018 regarding her Line Manager at the time. The Company did try to investigate the complaint and engaged in correspondence with her and her solicitor. Due to the Claimant’s unwillingness to provide the requested information, the complaint had to be closed off. Documentation was provided to show the history of the 2018 grievance and more recent concerns and issues raised by the Claimant.
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. Extensive documentation and verbal submissions were presented by both parties. There is a long history of complaints and grievances that the Worker has in her employment. The initial grievance formally submitted by her was in 2018, when she wrote to the CEO stating that she was making an official complaint against her manager. There followed an exchange of correspondence between her and the CEO which frankly resulted in her complaint going around in circles, with the CEO requesting further information, and the Worker not supplying any further than what was in her original complaint. I note the letter from the Worker’s solicitor to the CEO on 8th November 2018 which calls for a third-party investigator and terms of reference to be agreed. The closing down of her grievance at that stage was a lost opportunity. The interactions between the parties regarding the Worker’s sick leave record was extensively covered in written and oral submissions. I note the involvement in her Union in trying to resolve the matter and the Worker’s appeal regarding disallowed paid sick leave during 2018 was upheld. In general, it is well established that an Employer is entitled to manage employees’ sick leave absences. In this case, the Worker took grave exception to the manner in which this was handled and she considered it to be bullying. Information provided by the Employer showed that the Worker had many more times the average sick leave. However, at one point provision was made for an extension of paid sick leave with Board approval. I note the extensive documentary submissions from the Employer in Section 12 of their book, which specifically outlines a record of the Worker’s concerns and the Employer’s responses in the period 10th October 2022 to 9th August 2023. I note there are at least 19 issues contained therein, ranging from the Worker’s claim of favouritism regarding another employee, unwillingness to support new hires due to her ongoing dispute with the Employer, IT issues and pressure of work, health & safety issues and work tracking system. The ongoing dispute centres around her objection to the terms of the most recent contract issued to her in August 2022. It appears that the Worker has been on sick leave now for over a year. She has advised the Employer, repeated in an email to the current Manager, that she remained in dispute with the Employer around the implementation of new contractual terms and she had requested the CEO to appoint a third-party to investigate her grievances. At some stage, she seemed to indicate that she was requesting redundancy. This was not an option from the Employer’s perspective. At this stage of this long-drawn-out dispute, there is a need to bring closure in the interests of all parties. I recommend that the parties agree the appointment of an independent third-party to investigate the Worker’s complaints and that a resolution be found to either continue the employment relationship or to end it on amicable agreed terms. The process should be completed within three months of the acceptance of this recommendation. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute. I recommend that the parties agree the appointment of an independent third-party to investigate the Worker’s complaints at the end of which a resolution be found to either continue the employment relationship or to end it on amicable agreed terms. The process should be completed within three months of the acceptance of this recommendation.
Dated: 29-05-2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Key Words:
Industrial Relations dispute, recommend third-party to investigate and resolve the grievances of the employee. |
|
ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00001131
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | An Employee | A Local Development Company |
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 - 00001131 | 28/02/2023 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Date of Hearing: 11/03/2024
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 Worker is employed with the Employer as an Employment Guidance Officer for 17 years. She has a number of disputes and complaints about her Employer. Specifically, she alleges that she was subjected to bullying and harassment.
Summary of Workers Case:
The Claimant is employed as an Employment Advisor with a local Development Company since 2007. In 2009 she developed a serious health problem. She also was unfortunately involved in two car accidents and had to avail of her sick leave entitlements. She contends that she was subject to constant bullying from her Employer regarding her sick leave absences. This treatment went on for years from 2009 when she was diagnosed with cancer and in the following years when she had unfortunately suffered car accidents and various other situations. She was provided with a new contract in 2022 and told she had to sign it, even though it contained changes to her terms and conditions of employment which were unacceptable to her.
In the case at hand, the Claimant had nowhere to turn in relation to grievances she wished to raise with her Employer. She points to earlier issues such as comments being made about her disability and previous absences due to serious illness, and comments such as sick leave not being a “target”. The Claimant also relies on other instances of bullying, intimidation and harassment that she experienced at the hands of the CEO specifically:
(a Threatening the Claimant with punishment or consequence should she not sign new terms of employment;
(b Subjecting the Claimant to verbal abuse, attack and harassment;
(c Making the workplace unbearable for the Claimant to carry out her duties;
(d Over-scrutinization of the Claimant’s work performance;
(e Withdrawal of the Claimant’s sick leave entitlements;
(f Intimidation and harassment of the Claimant to bully her into agreeing to new terms of employment;
(g Subjecting the Claimant to patronising snide comments on a regular basis, demeaning her.
- The incorrect hourly rate of pay.
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Claimant raised a complaint in 2018 regarding her Line Manager at the time. The Company did try to investigate the complaint and engaged in correspondence with her and her solicitor. Due to the Claimant’s unwillingness to provide the requested information, the complaint had to be closed off. Documentation was provided to show the history of the 2018 grievance and more recent concerns and issues raised by the Claimant.
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. Extensive documentation and verbal submissions were presented by both parties. There is a long history of complaints and grievances that the Worker has in her employment. The initial grievance formally submitted by her was in 2018, when she wrote to the CEO stating that she was making an official complaint against her manager. There followed an exchange of correspondence between her and the CEO which frankly resulted in her complaint going around in circles, with the CEO requesting further information, and the Worker not supplying any further than what was in her original complaint. I note the letter from the Worker’s solicitor to the CEO on 8th November 2018 which calls for a third-party investigator and terms of reference to be agreed. The closing down of her grievance at that stage was a lost opportunity. The interactions between the parties regarding the Worker’s sick leave record was extensively covered in written and oral submissions. I note the involvement in her Union in trying to resolve the matter and the Worker’s appeal regarding disallowed paid sick leave during 2018 was upheld. In general, it is well established that an Employer is entitled to manage employees’ sick leave absences. In this case, the Worker took grave exception to the manner in which this was handled and she considered it to be bullying. Information provided by the Employer showed that the Worker had many more times the average sick leave. However, at one point provision was made for an extension of paid sick leave with Board approval. I note the extensive documentary submissions from the Employer in Section 12 of their book, which specifically outlines a record of the Worker’s concerns and the Employer’s responses in the period 10th October 2022 to 9th August 2023. I note there are at least 19 issues contained therein, ranging from the Worker’s claim of favouritism regarding another employee, unwillingness to support new hires due to her ongoing dispute with the Employer, IT issues and pressure of work, health & safety issues and work tracking system. The ongoing dispute centres around her objection to the terms of the most recent contract issued to her in August 2022. It appears that the Worker has been on sick leave now for over a year. She has advised the Employer, repeated in an email to the current Manager, that she remained in dispute with the Employer around the implementation of new contractual terms and she had requested the CEO to appoint a third-party to investigate her grievances. At some stage, she seemed to indicate that she was requesting redundancy. This was not an option from the Employer’s perspective. At this stage of this long-drawn-out dispute, there is a need to bring closure in the interests of all parties. I recommend that the parties agree the appointment of an independent third-party to investigate the Worker’s complaints and that a resolution be found to either continue the employment relationship or to end it on amicable agreed terms. The process should be completed within three months of the acceptance of this recommendation. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute. I recommend that the parties agree the appointment of an independent third-party to investigate the Worker’s complaints at the end of which a resolution be found to either continue the employment relationship or to end it on amicable agreed terms. The process should be completed within three months of the acceptance of this recommendation.
Dated: 10-05-2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Key Words:
Industrial Relations dispute, recommend third-party to investigate and resolve the grievances of the employee. |