Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

An Employer

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 - 00003252

09/10/2024

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

IR - SC - 00003253

09/10/2024

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The worker took two complaints under the Industrial Relations Acts. The first complaint related to the bullying and harassment procedures while the second related to constructive unfair dismissal. The worker was employed on this occasion with the employer for less than 12 months having been previously employed with the employer on two further occasions in the past..

The worker outlined how she made an informal complaint to the director about behaviours including micromanagement on the part of her line manager. He asked her to outline what they were and she noted that the behaviours were insidious but hard to explain. She inquired about her options for a transfer, and he assured her that it would not come to that.  However, he did move her desk and took over certain functions from her line manager. The worker confirmed that she did not take a further complaint under the bullying and harassment procedure nor revert seeking an alternative.

The worker noted that the manager subsequently had a meeting with her whereby he raised the issue of an extensive list of sick leave days. She was taken aback by this as she did not think that she had that level of days.  The worker looked into the matter and it subsequently transpired from her researches that her former line manager requested that a junior HR Business Partner amend her previously granted compassionate leave (following the passing of her mother) to sick leave and that this put her in a position where it appeared that she had more sick leave then she had actually taken.

The worker went out on sick leave due to work related stress towards the end of August and following this sought to raise a grievance. The employer noted that as she was currently on sick leave due to work related stress, it noted that they were not in a position to deal with a grievance from the complainant, without first seeking the opinion of an Occupational Health Specialist. The worker was referred to an Occupational Health Specialist and following a meeting on 27 September the occupational health specialist found her fit to engage with the grievance procedure.

The worker stated that in early October she engaged with the employer and submitted a grievance. The worker noted that the grievance was submitted on 4 October and confirmed that she resigned on 9 October.

The employer noted that the Director dealt with the bullying and harassment complaint and subsequently raised the issue of her performance employment plan in a meeting with the worker, the issues raised included that of excessive sick leave. The employer noted that the complainant was never actually put on a performance employment plan and that this was not a reprimand but was simply a management issue that needed to be raised.

The employer noted that the complainant made her claim to the WRC regarding constructive dismissal before submitting her resignation. The employer noted that it asked the worker to reconsider her resignation while they investigated the grievance and outlined to her that the person initially tasked with investigating the matter had taken urgent medical leave and that is why the matter had not moved along in the days since she submitted her grievance.

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

The worker raised two complaints under the Industrial Relations Acts, the first referred to the Bullying and Harassment procedures operated by the Respondent, the second related to a Constructive Unfair Dismissal.

As regards the bullying and harassment procedures, the worker submitted that nothing was done in relation to her complaint.  However, she confirmed the complaint was taken on an informal basis, that she spoke to the Director and that action was taken by the employer under the Bullying and Harassment procedures.   She did not revert to the employer under those procedures.  Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the bullying and harassment procedures were either not followed or were not effective in some manner.

As regards the Constructive Unfair Dismissal, the worker stated that her former line manager was responsible for changing her sick leave in a malicious fashion or otherwise as a punitive response to the worker having taken the complaint against her. She suggested that the employer had done nothing as regards her grievance and therefore she was left with no option but to resign.

The employer, upon receipt of the grievance, indicated to the worker that they could not proceed with the grievance until they were satisfied that she was fit to engage with them on the issue of the grievance. This position was adopted at a time when the worker was out on certified sick leave for work related stress. The employer's position is that the grievance was only lodged following the advice from the occupational health specialist that the worker was found fit to engage with the grievance procedure.

Although there is some dispute between the worker and the employer as to when exactly the grievance was lodged, the worker says 4 October, the employer says 7 October, the fact is that the worker resigned on 9 October. The worker conceded that this falls within the time frame for investigation of a Grievance according to the grievance policy operated by the employer and consequently that she resigned before the period of investigation was over.  However, she conceded this only if her grievance was lodged in October, but she was adamant that her grievance was lodged earlier than that.

Having considered the matter of when the grievance was lodged, I am satisfied that the employer’s course of action falls within the bounds of what may be considered reasonable for an employer to undertake when somebody is on sick leave, particularly when that leave is certified to relate to work-related stress, as in this case.  As such, I am satisfied that it was reasonable for the employer to conclude that the grievance was lodged in October and proceed to process it in accordance with its policy from that time.

Arising from the foregoing I consider that the worker had options available to her other than resignation.  She pre-empted the conclusion of an ongoing investigation.  The employer asked her to reconsider her resignation while it investigated her Grievance, but she declined to do so. In the circumstances I believe she did not exhaust all the avenues available to her before resigning and I do not think that she has established that she was left with no option other than resignation.

IR Acts – Bullying & Harassment procedures – Grievance procedures – Constructive Unfair Dismissal - explore all avenues