Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Business Administrator

A Pharma & Specialist Chemical Supply Company

Representatives

Self-Represented

Róisín O'Brien of DLA Piper Ireland LLP

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 - 00002398

15/03/2024

The dispute concerned, initially, on date of referral (15th March 2024) an allegation of Employer failure to properly handle a Bullying and Harassment claim made against a Manager. An investigation Report made by a Senior Manager was dismissed by the Worker as completely flawed.

Subsequently the Worker resigned from the Employment on the 24th April 2024.

The Worker was employed as a Business Support Administrator at a stated rate of pay per annum of an initial (2018) € 26 K for a 35 Hour week.

The Employment had commenced on the 15th March 2018.

The Worker gave an Oral Testimony supported by her WRC referral form and numerous copy e-mails.

In essence her case was that she had been bullied and harassed by her immediate Superior, Ms X, for most of 2023. Ms X, it was alleged, regularly “screamed” and “shouted” at the Worker and was completely unfair in allocation of Annual Leave and Time Off for minor personal/family matters.

The Worker felt that an incident /mistake in July 2023 involving Stock and paperwork issue had been very unfairly attributed to her by Ms X. In addition, Ms X was, openly with other staff, discussing Personal/Family Relationship details regarding the Worker. This was in complete breach of all Data Protection rules.

The Worker lodged a Grievance, under the Company Policy, on the 29th January 2024. This Grievance was allegedly investigated by Mr S, a Senior manager. The investigation was completely flawed, and many relevant witnesses were not interviewed. The Worker requested the WRC to intervene and direct that a new investigation take place.

Subsequent to the lodging of this Dispute further incidents took place and the Worker resigned on the 24th April 2024. In her Oral testimony the Worker effectively maintained that she had “Been driven out” and left with no option but to resign.

A complete loss of faith and trust in the Management had taken place. She had never been believed by Mr S.

The Employer was represented primarily by Ms O’Leary of DLA Piper Law Firm, supported by Regional Manager Mr. S and HR Manager Ms H. A written submission was entered.

In essence the Employer case was that the entire dispute was premature for the WRC. A Grievance had been made and was investigated by Mr S who had carefully reviewed the Office situation in the Dublin Office. Mr S had interviewed witnesses whom he felt were relevant.

In his Report (published on the 1st March 2024) he made a number of critical Managerial observations as regards the Office culture at Dublin. He had recommended further “Interpersonal” staff training and the possible use of an external Expert to assess /improve the Office Culture.

He did not find that Ms X, the primary subject of the Worker Grievance had “intentionally” done anything wrong. The Worker Grievance, against effectively Ms X, was not supported in his findings. However, much room was left for suggested improvements in relationships.

His Report was given in evidence. An option existed and was offered by Mr S to the Worker to Appeal his Reports. This option was never taken up by the Worker.

The Worker took sick leave for Work related Stress from the 7th March to the 5th April 2024. On the 16th April 2024, Mr S, accompanied by Ms H from HR, had a meeting with the Worker in an effort to see how things could be improved. The Worker was not really cooperative as she stated that his Report had effectively “called her a liar”.

The Worker resigned her employment of the 24th April 2024. The Resignation was accepted with regret the following day.

The Employer has a sophisticated suite of Employment Procedures. Her Grievance was investigated fully. An Appeal Stage was offered but declined. An effort was being made (Meeting of the 16th April 2024) to addresses Office concerns.

The Worker’s referral to the WRC was completely premature before all local Procedures and discussions had taken place.

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

The first major point has to be that the Dispute (referred to the WRC on the 15th March 2024) was only in relation to the Grievance process carried out by Mr S whose report had been published on the 1st March 2024.

Events post this period are matters for different WRC and Legal procedures.

Details of these procedures etc are available from the WRC Website and other public sources.

Oral evidence was crucial in this case.

The Worker was heartfelt in her verbal statements. She had to be advised by the Adjudicator to have caution regarding “hearsay” comments regarding, in particular, Ms X, the former Supervisor. The Worker alleged that Mr S, the Manager, had not taken the complaint seriously and had not interviewed “key” witnesses, fellow Workers who had also allegedly “Suffered” with Ms X. The bulk of this evidence was “hearsay” as Ms X was not present at the Hearing to be cross examined by the Worker.

Mr S, Regional Manager but not based in Dublin, gave evidence that he had been at all times anxious to promote a good atmosphere in the Dublin Office. He presented as a very competent Manager with, it appeared to the Adjudicator, a measured managerial style. He was attempting to resolve issues, as his meeting of the 16th April clearly indicted. It was a difficult, largely interpersonal situation between the Office Workers. It would take some time and he had made suggestions regarding getting outside help.

The Worker’s resignation had pre-empted his efforts, as far as he was concerned, regarding her situation. None the less it was a necessary Managerial exercise to undertake as regards the wellbeing of the Dublin Office.

The Adjudication view, bearing in mind this was an Industrial Relations Act,1969 claim, has to be based on good precedent and indeed Legal authorities such as the Statutory Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures, SI 146 of 2000.

In this case the Worker, albeit for strongly felt personal reasons, resigned while Mr S was attempting to achieve some form of reasonable Office interaction at the Dublin office. The Worker could not realistically maintain that it was a “pointless exercise” before it had really got started. In addition, her relationship with Ms X was now in Office Managerial “Headlights” which, it might be suggested, would, in itself, lead to a more restrained relationship between the Workers.

Her action in declining the Appeal offered had been in breach of Internal Procedures and effectively prevented them from concluding.

The extensive Labour court case law cited by the Employer supports this positon. Key case cited was Brothers of Charity & A Worker (LCR 22589). Here the Court referred to a Worker resigning before all internal avenues had been exhausted.

On balance and having listened to all the oral evidence and read the written statements the Adjudication conclusions have to follow precedent. The Recommendation has to be that the Worker, in this case, resigned before all internal avenues had been exhausted.

Accordingly, the Recommendation has to be that the case fails.

However, this Recommendation does not preclude the Worker from referring matters post the Grievance issues concerned, to the WRC under different legislation.

Grievance, Procedures, Premature Dispute.