Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Pharmacist Technician

Pharmacy

Representatives

  Emma Ryan, Johnston Solicitors

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 - 00003164

22/09/2024

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

IR - SC - 00003165

22/09/2024

The background to this complaint are matters arising over several years and the Complainant is now  a former Worker of the Pharmacy.

The Worker was able to demonstrate several years of contemporaneous notes on what they perceived as unfair treatment and indiscretion.

The Employer is a small community pharmacy operating in a high pressure and busy environment in a small town. The Employer denies the issues put forth by the Worker and set out that issues arising were matters of misunderstanding and misinterpretation.

The Worker made a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 related to bullying and harassment procedures. The Employer made no objection to having the matters being investigated by an Adjudication Officer.

I have had an opportunity to read the parties submissions, hear their issues and allowed them to present their information to me.  

I heard the matter in detail by remote hearing and the written submissions from both parties were quite lengthy with considerable detail including a great deal of contemporaneous notes and these can only be generally summarised here in shortened form.

The Worker was employed by a busy community pharmacy since 2017 and had been working in the industry since a young age.

The initial submission from the Worker set out issues that she had observed over some time. It was the impression of the worker that she was not valued or treated equally in comparison to other employees and was the subject of bullying and harassment by management.

 An issue raised was that in voicing her concerns that these went unheeded and/or ignored. In raising issues related to a medical condition, she felt the response from the Employer was threatening in terms of the effect on her ability to work. This was supplemented by a following submission outlining the same and some other issues. One of the issues raised was there was a lack of understanding on issues of disability and she was incorrectly labelled as having OCD, for which she felt offended although this was addressed by the Employer and it was clear that there was an error of judgement on the part of the Employer.

A further issue arose in terms of the Worker, and others, including sensitive medical information that there was a degree of indiscretion by the Employer

A series of issues arose in the course of employment and the Worker felt these were dismissed which further exacerbated the distress and led to a further breakdown in relationships.

The Worker described other issues that arose, as part of her submission, which described a less than flattering view of the Employer in terms of management style and supervision.

The Worker explained that she  had made up her  mind that this was not the place for her  early in the relationships and at this point issues arose for them in terms of their personal privacy being breached. This related to medical issues related to their spine and a more personal medical matter for them and their partner. They put forward that this personal information was discussed with others and related back to her by another staff member. Overall, the Worker was not satisfied with the response of the Employer on this matter in terms of reacting to the emerging needs of the worker.

It was clear from the details given at the hearing that the Worker took great pride in the work she performed for the Employer and continues to do in their new role with new employer. The Worker has since found employment in another local pharmacy but describes suffering from anxiety in circumstances that she will meet her former employer locally. It was a submission of the Worker that she wished for no other person to suffer in the manner she described whilst working for the Employer. This was reiterated by her  spokesperson who also asked for any other recommendation that the Adjudicator saw fit to recommend.

The Employer is a small local pharmacy and operates in a high pressure environment, having been in business for 30+ years employing a number of staff.

The Employer has put forth a comprehensive  submission of fourteen pages and included procedures as part of the appendices. The Employer describes the Worker in this document, and verbally, at the hearing as an excellent Pharmacist Technician and this was evident from the reference that was provided to the Worker. The Employer  stated that they were sorry to see them leave and regarded her  highly for her skills and abilities stating she was  excellent at her job, with a caveat around flexibility as an issue, at times, for them as an  Employer.

The Employer contests the case described by the worker in the written submissions and at the hearing detailing these in detail. The Employer also contests that the Worker was not treated any differently from other employees.

It is denied that the Employer made reference to OCD on the part of the Worker, but it was recalled that there was a conversation in this vein that was not intended to be denigrating.  The Employer had set out that there was an issue around flexibility, but the worker position is that this was never raised with her at any reviews.

It is the position of the Employer that there is no recollection of such issues arising and crucially that if it was the case, the correct formal procedures provided should have been invoked in line with the employment procedures. The Employer describes themselves as a good employer with robust policies and procedures in place.

In conducting my investigation, I have considered all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. It is the role of the Adjudicator make a recommendation to the parties to the dispute setting forth my opinion on the merits of the dispute.

On the matters at hand, I do not doubt the sincerity of either of the parties in their submissions and it appears to me that the issue is largely one of communication failure. Undoubtedly, running a small, but very busy business such as a pharmacy carries a great deal of responsibility in terms of human health and welfare and is an onerous task with a great deal of regulation involved. I am also cognisant that running a small personal enterprise in a small town leads to a familiarity and informality with the customers which is to be welcomed where it does not overstep the requirements of discretion and best practice people management. However, there is still an onus on an employer to address any issues arising in a responsible manner and to be alert for issues that may arise from time to time. Such issues if dealt with quickly are easier to resolve at the outset and it is a duty on management to ensure best practice.

On the Worker side, where formal procedures are in place for resolving issues arising, there is an onus on a Worker to use same to their fullest. It is unfortunate that this was not the case in this matter and that the issues raised did not invoke a formal process. Utilising the procedure in this manner may have brought a resolution to the issue quickly and put the Employer on notice.

Section 13, Bullying and Harassment, Discretion, Use of Procedures,