Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A worker in the construction industry

A company in the construction industry.

Representatives

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 - 00001791

14/09/2023

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

IR - SC - 00001792

14/09/2023

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

IR - SC - 00002543

14/09/2023

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

IR - SC - 00002544

14/09/2023

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

IR - SC - 00002545

14/09/2023

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

IR - SC - 00002546

14/09/2023

The worker was employed by the employer who provides services to the construction industry.

The worker submitted a specific complaint regarding “Bullying and Harassment Procedures.”

The worker submitted that after his departure from his employer he made several attempts to find out whether he was still employed or not.  He got no response from his employer.

At the hearing the worker stated that when he returned from sick leave in September 2023, he wanted to go back to work.  He contacted his employer, but he did not get a response. He believes this was done to force him to quit his job.

A representative for the employer stated at the hearing that the worker went sick in July 2023, and did not follow procedures. The worker would go to his home and would go sick so he could claim social welfare payments. When he came back from sick leave the employer contacted him several times, but he was not put back on the roster, he then went sick again and then resigned his employment.

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

There is a conflict between the parties on this matter. However, there is insufficient evidence to find that the employer failed to follow its own procedures.

The worker submits that several certificates for training referring to his training were forged by the employer.

At the hearing the worker stated that when he came to Ireland, he was told by his employer that he already had all the requirements needed to work in the construction industry.  The worker thought this strange. A few months went by and he went to work on a site.  He was told he needed several documents/qualifications to work on that site.  He called his manager and explained the situation to him. Within 10 minutes he received an email from management showing he had all the qualifications he needed, even though he never did the required courses.

He also stated that the company had a “qualification” document showing he had completed a manual handling skills course in 2019, when he had only come to Ireland in 2020.

The worker explained about an incident when he was to work on a site that required, he be a member of a union.  He was not a member of the union but there were no problems for him when he worked on the site.  A couple of months before the work on that particular site ended, the worker contacted the union in question to enquire from it about his membership status. The response he received was that he was indeed a member of the said union, giving him the date on which his membership started. However, he was told his employer had subsequently terminated his union membership.  The worker enquired how he could apply and sign his name [to join the union].  In response the union sent his documentation with everything filled out.  The worker stated that the writing looked like his manager’s writing.  The worker was adamant he had not filled out the form.

A former employee of the employer stated at the hearing that specific qualifications were needed to carry out work but his boss did not like the workers taking time off to complete the required training courses so he would sign certain documents to allow this worker to go on sites.  He said like the worker taking the claim he had lots of documents [showing his qualifications] but he had not done the required training.

A representative for the employer stated that the company does all required safety training and that they take their responsibilities in this area very seriously. He stated that the company could not believe the allegations made and were “going to look into it.”

Following a short break to allow the employer look at its training records, the employer representative stated that they had a list of employees who and what training they completed for 2022, however, this worker was not included on the list.

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

Considering the detailed evidence given by the worker, the corroborating evidence given by a former employee and the lack of any worthwhile response from the employer, I conclude that the employer did forge documents in order to circumvent the requirement to train their employees as they should have done.

This is a serious allegation and one which goes to the heart of trust between employer, employee and indeed client. 

Notwithstanding the above, the worker is in some way blameworthy in this misconduct.  He did not challenge his employer when he was asked to enjoin in this subterfuge.

The worker submits that there were times he would be sent to clients to do work when he had not completed the necessary training to be allowed on site.  He was told by his employer that he should sign his name as a person who had the training and “impersonate them in case of an inspection.”

At the hearing the worker stated that there would be documents at the gates of clients that required his signature.  He was told by his boss to falsify his name. The worker could not give or remember specific examples of this taking place, but it was common practice.

The employer’s representative stated that this allegation was a complete fabrication, it was “ridiculous” and asked [rhetorically] why he would do it. 

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

I note the conflict between the parties on this issue.

I prefer the worker’s evidence in this matter and conclude that some impersonation was encouraged by the employer. Again, it is my view that the worker could have objected to this in some way.

The worker submitted that his manager would often yell at him or of work was not completed on time, he would use obscene language to admonish him.

At the hearing the worker stated that he had heard his manger insulting him and his colleagues. He could not remember when this incident had taken place.

The representative for the employer stated that he had no recollection of such a thing taking place.

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

While not excusing it, the use of foul language in the construction industry would not be unknown. Whether the alleged incident referred to by the worker took place has not been proven.

The worker submits that there was an unfair provision in his contract of employment which meant that if the employer did not have work for him, he could “keep you at home as long as he likes and does not have to pay you for it, the so called ‘zero contracts’”.

The worker stated at the hearing that the employer would keep people at home [without work] and not pay them.  The worker went three weeks without pay at one stage and he was forced to resign from his job as a result. The contract he signed included a clause which meant that the employer did not have to give them hours or pay the workers if there was no work available.  The worker believes this Zero Hours clause was in contracts in 2020 when it should have been done away with in 2018 when the legislation was enacted.

In response to this accusation, the employer’s representative stated that the company does noy operate a “Zero Hours£ contract, however it does have a clause which allows for a reduction in working hours if there is a downturn, which would be out of the company’s control.

Regarding this worker, the employer’s representative explained that he had a history of not following the absence policy.  He would according to the representative, regularly go to his home country [outside of Ireland] on annual leave and then submitting sick leave certs to the company, thus enjoying social welfare benefits and accruing annual leave. Because of this and other employees doing something similar, the company tightened up its sick leave policy. The worker was made aware that he must get a fit to return to work cert before he returned to work. He failed to produce such a cert for a two-week period and then went out sick again. While he was on sick leave, he resigned.

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

I prefer the evidence of the employer in this instance.

The worker submitted a complaint which was nothing to do with him.

The employer was not asked to comment on this matter.

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

I did not admit this complaint as it was not related to the worker.

Hours of work, abusive language.