Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Accommodation Assistant

A Hotel

Representatives

  In person

 IBEC

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Dispute seeking adjudication under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

CA-00059077-001

28/09/23

The worker was employed by the employer as an accommodation assistant from on or about the 6th October 2022 until 14th June 2023. The within referral concerns a number of issues that the worker was unhappy about during her employment and the efforts she made to address these issues to varying organisations.

The worker raised numerous issues of dissatisfaction and while some issues were raised to her employer, other issues were raised directly to the WRC and the worker also visited the Garda Siochána on numerous occasions during working hours to report other issues in respect of her treatment at work.

This industrial relation referral is one of several complaints referred to the WRC and this recommendation addresses only the matters raised within. Other employment issues raised by the worker will be addressed in decisions relating to separate complaints alleging breaches of the worker’s employment rights.

In the within referral the worker contends that she was subjected to bullying and harassment behaviour by management and her colleagues while employed at the hotel. The worker stated that she was “imprisoned” in a lift by a colleague and prevented from leaving an office on another occasion. The worker further stated that she was verbally abused by a supervisor and had sought CCTV footage of the interaction and was also told she did not deserve to be paid for the work she had done. The worker also stated that she injured her neck when a colleague pulled a housekeeping trolley from her during another interaction and on another occasion a colleague removed items from her trolley. She stated that her managers and colleagues referred to her as unsocial and that she needed psychiatric help. She stated that her colleagues were told to ignore her in the workplace. The worker also stated that she did not attend social gatherings with her colleagues and management and as a result she did not receive the same support and help with her duties as others did. The worker also stated that her colleagues in housekeeping were getting help from the porters in their duties and were receiving favours in return whereas she was completely ignored and ostracised by her colleagues.

The worker stated that what she found most upsetting was the issue surrounding a parcel that had been sent to her as a Christmas gift. The worker noticed the gift in a plastic bag on 14th February 2023 when she attended work. She says that the parcel looked like it may have been opened. The worker stated that two months earlier she began renting the bedroom of a colleague who was away on holidays for two months. The worker experienced difficulties with other tenants in the property and was evicted during the colleague’s absence on holiday. The parcel was delivered to the house but was not given to her until the colleague brought it to the workplace on her return from holidays. As the worker had previously experienced difficulties with others in the house, she was not prepared to open the parcel as it looked like it may have been tampered with. The worker stated that she had requested that her colleague bring the parcel to the police, and she would collect it once it had been inspected.

The complainant stated that instead of this, she was blamed by management for bringing the issue into the workplace. While the worker thought the accommodation manager was to give the parcel to the colleague who had brought it to the hotel, it transpired that the accommodation manager opened it herself and informed the complainant of this the following day. The complainant stated that she would not take the parcel as a result. The complainant contends that the actions of the employer were unlawful in respect of her property by opening her parcel without her permission. The parcel was ultimately disposed of by the employer, and the worker stated that she still does not know what happened to it.

The worker stated that she often felt unsafe at work and left the employment on a few occasions to report issues to the police such as her imprisonment in the lift and the HR office and the issue of the parcel being opened without her consent.

The worker concluded her submissions by stating that she found the employment chaotic, unprofessional and disrespectful. The worker stated that procedures should be put in place whereby workers who raise issues are listened to and have their right to dignity respected. The worker stated that despite her qualifications in community health care, childcare and as a holistic therapist, she was ignored when she raised issues to management and was completely disrespected throughout the employment.

In respect of the parcel, the employer stated that it was received with the worker’s name on it and was put away for her. The employer contends that the worker refused to collect the parcel, and it was opened for security reasons by the accommodation manager. It was ultimately disposed of into a charity collection box when the worker would not accept it into her possession. The employer contends that it did not act inappropriately in respect of the parcel or the way the issue was handled.

In respect of the other issues raised by the worker, the employer contends there were several issues raised and that the worker was hard to engage with in respect of same. In relation to the “imprisonment” in the lift, this was investigated, and the video footage showed a male colleague trying to get on the lift and the worker trying to get off. In between them was a large accommodation trolley. The process did not result in any disciplinary action and the result of this was conveyed to the worker by the HR Manager.

In respect of an incident where the worker’s trolley is alleged to have been taken and allegations of abusive language to the worker, a written complaint was submitted and was investigated in line with the employer’s procedures. The process was inconclusive and did not result in any disciplinary action.

The employer stated that grievance procedures were offered but not always pursued and all grievances that were raised formally were addressed in line with the policies and procedures within the employment. The employer stated it acted reasonably towards the worker and treated her with fairness at all times.

I have considered the written and oral submissions of the parties to the within dispute. It is not the role of a WRC Adjudication Officer (AO) to investigate issues raised by the worker or to make recommendations on issues that have not been raised at local level. It is the employer’s role to investigate matters that are raised in respect of the worker’s employment, and I am satisfied having reviewed the documents in question that the employer followed its policies and procedures in respect of the many issues of dissatisfaction that were raised by the worker.

The worker was obviously unhappy in her employment and feels that she was repeatedly treated badly by her colleagues, however, in my view, the employer addressed these matters in the appropriate manner through the policies it had in place.

The worker asked that the video footage of the “imprisonment” in the lift be reviewed at the adjudication hearing. I reviewed this footage twice in the presence of both parties. On this issue, I do not find that this was a situation where the worker was stopped from leaving the lift. She recorded the incident and then moved the trolley to one side and was able to leave the lift. I appreciate that the worker had a previously traumatic event in a lift when she was younger but from my review of the video footage, I would not view this as someone being imprisoned as the worker described.

In respect of the parcel, it is unfortunate that this issue developed as it did. The matter of the worker’s difficulties at her home is not for consideration in this recommendation. In respect of the parcel itself, when the worker refused to take it from the employer, the employer acted reasonably in my view in placing the parcel in a charity collection box. This only occurred because the worker would not open the parcel herself for the reasons she outlined and would not accept the parcel after it had been opened by the accommodation manager opting instead to leave work and report the matter to the police. 

In all of the circumstances of the dispute, I find that the employer acted reasonably in its interactions with the worker in its handling of the many issues she raised and, in my view, there is no further action required of the employer in respect of this dispute.

Having considered the submissions of both parties, I find that the employer acted reasonably and with fairness in respect of the issues raised. As the worker is no longer employed, I recommend that the parties consider the matter closed and that no further action is required to be taken by the employer in respect of this matter.

Workplace grievances