Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A recruitment agency

Representatives

Self

John Barry Management Support Services (Ireland) Ltd

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 - 00002955

05/08/2024

The dispute was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission on 5th August, 2024. The complaint form stated that the dispute was in relation to a letter that the Worker had received from her manager. The letter, dated 17th July 2024, was titled “Investigation Notice and Invitation”. The Worker was greatly troubled by this letter and submitted a complaint regarding bullying and harassment to the WRC as a result.

The Worker commenced employment with the Employer on 6th September, 2021 and remains in employment at the date of the hearing. Her job description since the commencement of her employment is “Office Administrator”.

The Worker said that she received a letter on 17th July 2024 from her manager which stated that there may be disciplinary action “up to and including dismissal”. She says that this put her under a lot of pressure and she thought things would go straight to dismissal. She felt that her manager wanted her to go and that the sending of the letter was harassment. She says that she feels targeted because she is the only one that issues have been raised with, such as being late, despite the fact that other employees were doing exactly the same thing as her.

When she received the letter, she immediately sought a meeting with the person in line above her manager. She wished to complain about her manager and considered that this was the appropriate step to take to do that. A meeting took place on 18th July 2024 with a more senior manager. The Worker was not satisfied with the outcome of that meeting so she submitted her complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission on 5th August 2024.

When asked what outcome the Worker wished to see from this process, the response was that she wanted her role description to be “HR Recruiter” and to be free from harassment. She said that “HR Recruiter” is a more accurate description of her role and it is important to her so that she can look for another place to work.

The Employer’s position is that the letter the Worker received was for the purpose of an investigation and did not mean that dismissal was imminent. Performance issues had been raised in relation to the Worker and as attempts to resolve these informally had not worked, a more formal process was implemented. The Employer submitted that it was a standard good practice letter that would be sent to employees at the commencement of any investigation. This process has been placed on hold pending the outcome of this hearing.

The Employer said that the Worker had not exhausted internal procedures in relation to any grievance and this complaint to the WRC was premature. The Employer has a process to deal with any claims of bullying and harassment. This is set out in the Employee Handbook but the Worker did not engage this process as required. The Employer asks that it is recommended that the Worker recognises that there are procedures and reporting lines in the company which should be availed of and that the Worker recognises her manager as the first port of call.

In relation to the Worker’s job title, the Employer acknowledges that recruitment is part of the role. However, the Worker was recruited as an Office Administrator and cannot ignore this aspect of her role because she enjoys the recruitment part more than the administration part. 

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

I accept the Employer’s position that the Worker’s complaint is premature. It is well-established that parties are expected to effectively utilise internal workplace procedures before referral of a dispute to the Workplace Relations Commission. In this case, the Worker has not exhausted the internal procedures available to her in respect of her complaint. While I acknowledge that she raised the issue with a manager in a position above her direct line manager on 18th July 2024, the matter has not been dealt with internally and this process must be allowed to continue.

The Employer, if it wasn’t already on notice of this, is now aware that the Worker considered that at the meeting on 18th July 2024 she was raising a grievance in relation to her direct line manager. This should be treated accordingly and in line with the Employer’s policies on bullying and harassment.

Finally, the Employer has been clear that it would not be correct to change the Worker’s job description to “HR Recruiter”. However, it is accepted by both parties that this is in large part a role that the Worker fulfils. While I accept that office administration is part of the Worker’s contractual duties and the Employer, understandably, does not want to remove this aspect from the description of the Worker’s position, I see no reason why the role cannot accurately be described as “HR Recruiter and Office Administrator”. This reflects the fact that the Worker was engaged to perform dual roles.

Industrial relations - Failure to exhaust internal procedures