Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A worker

A retail chain

Representatives

  In person

Niamh Ní Cheallaigh

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 - 00001969

10/11/2023

This complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 10th November 2023.

In complaints under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 the complainant is referred to as a worker and the respondent is referred to as an employer.

As per complaint form the Worker has stated the following:

My complaint appertains to a culture of bullying and harassment that developed in (employer name redacted) following the appointment of a new Head of People and Culture. An extraordinary number of staff resignations coincided with this appointment. These contributed to a toxic, unstable and fearful work environment. Staff were literally waiting for the “axe to fall” questioning who would be next to be forced to resign. The management style shifted from team based cooperation to authoritarian. Resignations included those with significant years’ service to the Company.

I was summoned to a meeting without any notice on 06.09.2023. Present were: The Head of People and Culture and another gentleman (a new hire that I had never met) it was clear from his silence that his role was that of witness. The Head of People and Culture informed I was being transferred to another location and another department in the city centre (a department outside my professional expertise). I experienced her demeanour as intimidating. I was informed that if I had any problem with the transfer, I would have to talk with a director. It was conveyed that I had no choice in the matter and the suggestion of the involvement of a director was viewed by me as threatening. The series of emails attached to my complaint evince a quite extraordinary and disrespectful attitude adopted by management in response to my reasonable request for valid reasons to remain in my position in (current location). My complaint includes but is not exclusive to the following.

1.       Management failed to give any actual consideration to my legitimate request to remain in current location for valid reasons. The move to the city centre was not to my personal, professional or financial advantage. It would have impacted an already stretched budget, added a minimum of two hours travel to my working day impacting my capacity to care for my elderly and ill mother outside working hours and be close by in case of emergency. My work/life balance and obligations were clearly not considered.

2.        Management has to date failed to address a formal complaint lodged by me against the Head of People and Culture.

3.       Management failed to respond to a request that they facilitate mediation through the WRC.

4.       Management advertised my position in prior to any agreement regarding the transfer. This suggests that the inflexible attitude adopted by management was the exercise of power for powers sake. It was totally illogical that they were removing an employee who wished to stay rather than employ someone for the position in the city centre.

5.       The tone of the written communications from management can only be considered as passive aggressive bullying. For example, I developed a work-related stress condition which required medical leave. While I was on sick leave, HR emailed me contact details for a mental health support service. I would also cite their persistent failure to actually address the issues contained in my communications as disrespectful and deliberately intended to frustrate resolution of matters which further contributed to the unnecessary stress caused.

6.       It is a matter of grave concern that Management as recently as yesterday cited a contract signed by me. Such a document does not exist. I was given a contract at the start of my employment but never signed it. As time went it was not an issue for me. I did not think it was relevant. I was happy in my job, I had an exemplary work record, received exceptionally favourable work reviews from management and customers alike. I had also received salary increases based on performance. In short, I was exceptionally happy in my job. I am of the opinion that the disrespect I have experienced from the highest levels of management at (company name redacted) left me with no option but to resign.

The Worker’s letter of resignation read as follows:

10.11.2023

Dear Mr (name redacted),

I wish to inform you of my resignation effective immediately. I have exhausted all reasonable avenues in an attempt to resolve the dispute regarding a proposed transfer of my position to the city centre. The move would not be in my personal, professional or financial interests. I can only conclude from recent communications that at the highest level of management, (name redacted) do not apply the required gravitas to talent retention, dignity in the workplace or regulatory compliance. This was particularly evident from your last email which asserted the existence of a legal document that does not exist. I advise that this morning I lodged a formal complaint against (employer name redacted) with the Workplace Relations Commission requesting adjudication as (employer name redacted) did not respond to my legitimate request that they facilitate mediation with the WRC. I will also be applying for Constructive Dismissal under the Unfair Dismissals Act.

Yours sincerely

The Respondent’s Position Claim 1:

 Section 13 of The Industrial Relations Act 1969: CA-00059905-001

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 sets out the role of an Adjudication Officer in an Industrial Relations dispute. It defines this as: 

“investigate any trade dispute referred to him…and shall, unless before doing so the dispute is settled— 

(i) make a recommendation to the parties to the dispute setting forth his opinion on the merits of the dispute,” 

This does not allow an Adjudication Officer to make specific findings as to what they consider the outcome of an internal investigation should be; rather their role within an Industrial Relations hearing is to assess whether the process conformed to the general principles set out in the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (SI146 of 2000).  The Employer respectfully submits that it is not the function of the Adjudication Officer to re-investigate or to form an opinion as to whether the Employer was objectively correct in their conclusions; rather the role is to establish if the Employer acted fairly in its dealings with the Complainant. 

The Employer wishes to refer to A Personal Assistant v A Trade Union ADJ-00030334, where the Adjudicator stated the following in his recommendation.  

“The jurisdiction of an Adjudication Officer under this legislation is somewhat constrained. It is essentially an oversight role to ensure that a worker’s rights have not been breached and to seek to apply equitable (in the colloquial sense) remedies where that will be of assistance to the parties. The Adjudicator has no role in substituting their decision for that made at the level of the workplace in the absence of some serious error in the processes.  

There is no evidence that the respondent failed to follow fair and proper procedures in the course of processing the grievance, only that the procedures applied failed to produce an outcome acceptable to the complainant.”

On this basis, the complaint failed, and the Adjudicator recommend that the complainant accept that the matter had been fully and fairly processed to a conclusion. Similarly in this instant case, at no stage was there any deficit in the procedures followed.  

It is the Employer’s position that a full and fair consultation and grievance process was offered to the Complainant in line with fair procedures and the requirements of SI146/2000. The Employer has a comprehensive and well-established agreed dispute resolution procedure in place and complaints of bullying and harassment are dealt with through the dignity at work policy.

The Employer respectfully submits the Worker, was provided with the opportunity to lodge a complaint under the Employer’s respective Dignity at Work Policy. The Employer was proactive in dealing with the complaint lodged by the Worker under this policy by initiating the drafting of a terms of reference document once the Worker formally lodged her complaint. However, the Worker failed to follow through with the next steps of the Employer’s Dignity at Work Policy when she failed to engage with the Employer further after lodging her complaint.  In turn, the Adjudication Officer is limited in their ability to assess the Employer’s application of their Bullying and Harassment procedures as the Employer was never given an opportunity by the Worker to apply their procedures to remedy the complaint.

Instead, the Worker was out on a period of certified sick leave before lodging her claim with the WRC on the 17th of November 2023. It is noteworthy to highlight that the Worker lodged this complaint prior to participating in the Respondent’s internal Dignity at Work process, thereby not allowing the process to run its full course. 

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

The workers actions made it impossible for the employer to conclude any type of investigation into the allegations made by the worker.

I am unable to make any recommendation in her favour.