Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Engineer

County Council

Representatives

Mr. Ken Stafford

Local Government Management Agency (LGMA)

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 - 00002166

26/01/2024

The Worker commenced employment with her Employer on 20th May 2004. At all relevant times, the Worker’s role was described as “engineer”.

On 26th January 2024, the Worker referred the present dispute to the Commission. On foot of the Employer’s positive election regarding engagement with the process, the matter proceeded to hearing. Said hearing was convened for, and finalised on, 10th September 2024.

In advance of the hearing, the Worker issued an extensive submission in relation to numerous allegations of mistreatment at the hands of the Employer. By response, the Employer, via their representative issued a substantive response, denying each of the allegations set out by the Worker. Said submissions were expanded upon and contested in the course of the hearing.

No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the dispute was raised at any stage of the proceedings.

By submission, the Worker stated that she held a senior post within the Employer organisation, with numerous persons reporting to her. In early 2023, one such person requested a period of unpaid leave. The Worker had no issue with this request and sought to assist the employee in her application. Unfortunately, the employee in question did not follow the correct protocol and commenced her leave without securing formal approval for the same. This left the Worker in a situation whereby she as unsure of the employee’s arrangement, with consequent issues for the entirety of her department. In April 2023, the employee question made a further request for a further five weeks of unpaid leave.

On the employee’s return to work, the Worker observed a distinct change in attitude and behaviour of the employee in question. On 22nd May, the employee accused the Worker of discrimination and bullying behaviour, an allegation that was strenuously denied by the Worker. In an effort to resolve the issues, the Worker attended a meeting, chaired by a director of the Employer. During this meeting the issues were discussed, with the Worker denying the allegations and seeking to otherwise resolve the matters. While the Worker did everything in her power to resolve the issues amicably and informally, the employee in question continued to raise groundless allegations against her. In addition to the same, the quality and quantity of work-related output from this employee began to suffer at this time. In particular, the employee routinely failed or refused to complete tasks within her normal range of duties.

The employee in question commenced a period of certified sick leave from 3rd July 2023. While the employee briefly returned to work on 31st July, she recommenced sick leave the following day, 1st August.  On this date the employee again issued vexatious complaints against the Worker. On 9th August 2023, the employee delivered a lengthy written complaint, accusing the Worker of various acts of discrimination. As with all previous complaints, the Worker stated, in no uncertain terms, that the allegations contained within this complaint were groundless, and were issued with the sole intention of causing her as much distress as possible.

As the Worker believed that she was being mistreated and falsely accused by the employee in question, she issued her own complaint on 27th September 2023, with further grounds being added by way of communications dated 5th and 13th December 2023. It was the position of the Worker that while the Employer took extensive efforts investigate the employee’s complaints, no effort was made to investigate her own complaints, and no resolution was reached in respect of the same.

The Employee in question returned to work on 27th November 2023, with the normal reporting structure remaining in place. By submission, the Worker took issue with this arrangement, given that at least four set of formal complaints had been referred regarding the inter-personal dispute between the parties. Again, on her return to work, the employee in question refused to complete tasks within her normal contractual duties and continued to seek to undermine the Worker. Despite the Worker repeatedly seeking some form of intervention from management, the Employer refused to take any action against the employee in question. In circumstances whereby the Worker had endured a toxic work environment for over one year, she commenced a period of sick leave.  

By submission, the Worker raised numerous procedural defects in the process adopted by her employers, along with several allegations of unfair treatment. In particular, the Worker stated that her employers failed to investigate, or address in any meaningful way, the allegations raised by her on three separate occasions. She further stated that her employer failed to properly investigate the complaints made against her. In this regard, that Worker stated that accusation of discrimination on the grounds of disability was particularly hurtful to her given her own personal circumstances. Given the nature and extent of these complaints, the Worker continually requested that an external investigator be appointed to conduct the investigation. This request was either ignored or refused by the Employer. The Worker further alleged that the Employer failed to support her in relation to her management of the employment question and steadfastly refused to invoke disciplinary procedures on foot of her continuous refusal to complete the tasks assigned to her and her obstruction of the Worker’s own duties. In this respect, the Worker stated that she was informed, during a meeting dated 19th June 2023, that there would never be any disciplinary action taken against the employee. On the employee’s return to work in November 2023, she was permitted to work remotely, in breach of national and local agreements, and was permitted to by-pass the Worker as her line manager and report directly to senior management. In this respect, the Worker was facilitated in a transfer request, while the Worker received no response to her own request.  By submission, the Worker stated that this issue arose in the context of her having requested additional resources on multiple occasions, and her section being chronically understaffed. The Worker further submitted that the Employer failed to properly disclose all relevant materials on foot of a data protection order and sought adjournments of the present hearing on spurious grounds.

Regarding the process itself, the Worker stated that she attended two meetings with the Employer’s HR function to review the complaint from the employee. Notwithstanding the same, no further meetings were convened to discuss the Worker’s own complaints, or any of the clarifications issued thereafter. The Worker further stated that the person appointed by the Employer to review the complainant did not provide proof of their qualifications in this regard. The Worker stated that her employer failed to provide information regarding a complaint under this Act to this forum brought by the employee. The Worker stated that one of the findings in the interim report found that the complaint regarding the employee’s request for leave should not have been directed at the Worker, but rested between the employee and management. In this respect, the Worker stated that had this finding been communicated to her some time previous, she would have been spared a significant amount of unnecessary stress. The Worker further submitted that the Employer disclosed private, and extremely sensitive, information to the employee during the process. In this respect, the Worker stated that this correspondence was not supposed to the disclosed to the employee in the question.

In light of the foregoing, the Worker requested that she be cleared of all wrong-doing alleged by the employee, with a statement to the effect that she did not do or say anything inappropriate. In this respect, she requested that she receive written confirmation that her personnel record has been cleared of all allegations of discrimination, bullying or harassment.  The Worker requested that written procedures be set out for the council to following in future matters. The Worker requested that certain member of the Employer’s HR function be prevented from having any dealings with the Worker in future. In the event that this cannot be facilitated, the Worker requested that a full external review of all her complaints be undertaken by an agreed external party. The Worker requested that she be compensated for all out of pocket expenses, including the costs of defending herself against the allegations an her loss of earnings whilst on sick leave. Finally, the Worker requested that she be facilitated with a mutually agreed internal transfer as requested.

By response, the Employer denied that they had treated the Worker unfairly in the course of her employment.

Following a period of leave undertaken by an employee that reported to the Worker, various issues arose in respect to the party’s working relationship. On foot of the same, a Director of the Employer convened a joint meeting of the parties on 1st June 2023, to discuss the matters and hopefully resolve the same on an informal basis. Unfortunately, this meeting did not serve to resolve the issues, and on 9th August 2023 the employee in question issued a written complaint alleging unequal treatment and harassment on the part of the Worker, with the same being issued to the Worker on 8th September 2023. Thereafter, the complaint was processed in accordance with the relevant dignity at work procedures.

An initial meeting between the Worker and a HR representative was scheduled for 19th September 2023. On foot of the Worker requesting more time to prepare her responses, the meeting was rescheduled to 28th September. On 25th September the Worker advised that she did not wish to engage in any informal process and that she was preparing a formal complaint regarding the conduct of the employee. On 26th September, the Worker then issued a formal complaint against the employee. On 6th October 2023, the Employer confirmed receipt of this complaint and advised that the matter would proceed in the same manner as the previous complaint. In this correspondence, the HR representative advised that the complaint would be incorporated into the process.

A meeting in respect of these issues was convened for 13th October, with a follow-up meeting being convened for 26th October 2023. On 2nd November, the Employer receive correspondence from the Worker outlining her dissatisfaction with the process undertaken to date. In this respect, the Worker stated that the allegations against her should be deemed to be without foundation. In addition to the same, the Worker stated that the allegations should be deemed to be frivolous and vexatious and that disciplinary action should be taken against the employee in question. By response, the Employer stated that the process was, at that point, ongoing, and that no decision had been made at that juncture. This correspondence further confirmed that the employee in question is entitled to raise a grievance, and should not face disciplinary sanction for doing so. By response, the Worker stated that she was now considering raising a complaint against the HR representative in respect of her handling of the process.

On 24th November 2023, the Director of the service issued an email to the Worker regarding the employee’s proposed return to work. In this respect, he stated that given that the parties were in dispute with each other, some interim arrangements were to be put into place. In this regard, the Director stated that he would act as an intermediary between the parties in an effort to reduce the level of contact. By response, the Worker issued an email to the Chief Executive of the Employer, asking that all investigations be taken out of the hands of the HR representative and that the investigation recommence before an external third party.

On 28th November 2023, the HR representative advised that she was finishing her consideration of the complaint and counter-complaint, and invited the Worker to meet with her on 30th November to advise of her conclusions to date. By further correspondence, the HR representative advised that the purpose of the meeting was to present her conclusions regarding the initial part of the complaint (the employee’s complaint) and to provide an update in respect to the Worker complaint against the employee.

On 20th November 2023, the HR representative confirmed that the employee’s complaint of unequal treatment and harassment was not upheld. In this respect, she found that the allegations raised by the employee did not meet threshold for bullying or harassment and that the same arose from a “breakdown in trust” and “issues in relation to how both parties communicate with each other”. The recommendation arising for the report was that the parties were to engage in mediation in an effort to resolve the issues that had arisen. The Complainant issued an email on 1st December 2023, thanking the HR representative for the report and stating that they were “valid and worthwhile”.

In December 2023, the Worker emailed the Employer advising that relations between the parties had become intolerable and stated that certain issues that had arisen should be considered a disciplinary matters. The Worker further advised that she would not be engaging in mediation in respect of the issues and that the employee should issue an apology to her.

On 23rd February 2024, a report issued in respect to the harassment element of the complaints raised by the employee and the complaint raised by the Worker. Again, the Employer deemed that these complaints did not meet the criteria for bullying or harassment but instead related to a breakdown in trust between the parties.

By submission, the Employer stated that all members for staff are entitled to raised grievances in the event that they believe they have been treated unfairly. While the Employer recognised that this can be a distressing and difficult time for the parties involved, each allegation must be investigated and cannot be simply dismissed on the request of a party. In this regard, the Employer stated that the complaints against, and issued by, the Worker were not upheld on the basis that the same did not meet the definition of bullying or harassment. In this regard, the Employer determined that a breakdown of trust and communication had arisen between the parties and recommended mediation as a means by which to resolve the dispute. Regarding the Worker’s request that the employee be disciplined both for issues a purported vexatious complaint and an alleged failure to complete her work thereafter, the Employer stated that these matters cannot be directed by the Worker but related to the employee in question only. Finally, the Employer denied that they failed to communicate with the Worker and submitted that they kept her updated at all stages of the process.

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

Regarding the present dispute, the Worker has raised numerous complaints of unfair treatment at the hands of the Employer. In this regard she submitted that her employer failed to investigate various inter-personal complaints she raised against an employee that reported to her. She stated that the Employer demonstrated preferential treatment towards this person throughout this process, particularly in their failure to disciplinary her in respect of various breaches of her contract of employment and the Employer’s internal procedures. She stated that the Employer disclosed personal information in the course of this process, in breach of various GDPR regulations. Finally, the Worker raised numerous procedural concerns regarding the process adopted by the Employer, both in the investigation of the complaints against her, and the complaints raised by her.

Taking a broad view of the matters, it is apparent that the employee in question raised several complaints against the Worker in accordance with the Employer’s internal policies. While the Worker was in the process of responding to these, she then raised a further set of complaints against the employee in question. Thereafter, the Respondent found that the complaints against the Worker did not meet the threshold to be considered bullying or harassment, with a similar outcome achieved in relation to her own set of complaints. Prior to the hearing itself, the employee in question transferred to another department, and it is apparent that the parties will have no further contact in a professional capacity.

In this regard, it can be seen that the complaints against the Worker were not upheld under internal dignity at work policy, and the partiers were recommended to engage in facilitated mediation, a proposal that was rejected by the Worker. By submission, the Worker has stated that the Employer failed to properly investigate these complaints and that she has not been cleared of any wrong-doing or inference of discrimination. The Worker stated that the nature of the complaints raised against her were particularly egregious given her own personal circumstances.  While it is undoubtedly the case that to be accused of bullying and harassment in the workplace can be an extremely stressful and unpleasant experience, the purpose of the Employer’s investigation into the same is not, initially at last, to disprove the allegations themselves. Rather, as a preliminary step, the Employer examines the nature of the allegations to determine whether they meet the relevant definitions for bullying and or harassment. In the event that they do not, the matter is generally referred to resolution on a local level. In this regard, the Worker has sought exoneration from the allegations raised by the employee in question, with a statement from the Employer to the effect that they are entirely without merit.  As observed above, this is not the purpose of the Employer’s dignity at work process. Notwithstanding the same, it is the case that no allegations of bullying or harassment have been proven against the Worker and the process in this regard has completed. In this respect, it would not be conducive to the improvement of relations between the parties to re-open and re-litigate this process.

By submission, the Worker has stated that the Employer failed to protect her throughout both sets of processes. In particular, she submitted that the Employer failed to discipline the employee in question, firstly for raising groundless complaints against her, and thereafter by refusing to complete her own duties. The Worker further alleged that this employee actively prevented her from completing some of her own duties. Regarding the first point, the employer has a duty to ensure that all members of staff can raise complaints under their internal procedures without fear of reprisal.  In this respect, the imposition of disciplinary sanction on a member of staff for raising complaints against a manager is contrary to this position and could well constitute a form of penalisation. While the Worker is entirely within her rights to view the complaints as being without merit, the Employer cannot form this view without engaging in a comprehensive internal process, and certainly cannot do so on the request of the respondent to the complaint. Regarding the issue that occurred during the course of the employee’s normal duties, the imposition of disciplinary sanctions is normally an issue that is considered between the employee in question and management. While the Worker may well have been of the opinion that the conduct of the employee was such that disciplinary sanction as warranted, the employee in question has their own set of rights that must be respected. As the employee in question is not a party to the present dispute, it would be inappropriate to make any form of recommendation in relation to this matter.

Regarding the complaints raised by the Worker herself, she has alleged that the same were not investigated at all. In this regard, it is noted that the present dispute was referred prior to this process being finalised, with an interim report being issued approximately one month following the referral of the dispute. By submission, the Worker raised numerous procedural defects in the manner by which the Employer sought to investigate her complaints. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is noted that on receipt of the Worker’s complaint, the Employer sought to invite the Worker to a meeting whereby the complaint would be considered, and further matter discussed. Thereafter, the Employer considered the statement of the Worker, along with the statement of the respondent to the complaint, and issued a report setting out their findings for the Worker’s review. While the Worker is clearly unhappy with the outcome of the report, and has raised multiple issues regarding the process adopted by the Employer in achieving this outcome, it is noted that the process was conducted in accordance with the Employer’s internal procedures. While the Worker has raised further issues regarding certain alleged breaches of data protection, such complaints are more appropriately addressed in an alternative forum.

Regarding the recommendation below, the purpose of the present referral is to facilitate a final settlement of an issue based on an outcome that is realistically acceptable to both parties. In this respect, it is common case that the issues giving rise to the present referral relate to a series of inter-personal disputes between the Worker and her former colleague. On the date of the hearing, it is apparent that the colleague in question had been facilitated with a transfer to another department, and there is no prospect of any further interaction between the parties. In addition to the foregoing, the Worker has raised numerous issues regarding the manner by which the Employer investigated the grievances raised by her, and against her. In this respect, it is again apparent that the complaints raised against the Worker were not upheld and were dismissed. While the Worker has taken issue with the outcome and procedure adopted in relation to the complaints raised by her, the reality is that she will have no further interaction with the subject of those complaints and, on a purely practical level, the matter is resolved.

Having regard to the foregoing, to facilitate the resumption of normal working relationships between the Worker and the Employer, it is proposed that the matter be deemed to be closed. In order to provide some comfort to the Worker, I recommend that the Employer issue correspondence to her confirming that no findings of bullying, harassment or an adverse outcome of any description was made as a consequence of the process adopted.

Inter-Personal Procedures, Procedural Defects, Data Protection