ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00007701
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 |
CA-00010344-001 | 22/03/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 11/09/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Niamh O'Carroll Kelly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and following the presentation by an employee of a complaint of a contravention by an employer of an Act contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015 or such other act as may be referred to in the 2015 Act, made to the Director General and following a referral by the said Director General of this matter to the Adjudication services, I can confirm that I have fulfilled my obligation to make all relevant inquiries into the complaint or dispute. I have additionally and where appropriate heard the oral evidence of the parties and their witnesses and have taken account of the evidence tendered in the course of the hearing.
The Complainant herein has referred a matter for dispute resolution under Section 13 Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and the referral has been made within six months of the initial circumstances of the relevant dispute..
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant stated that she was harassed by an older gentleman who frequently came into the store. He invaded her personal space, spoke inappropriately to her and on one occasion chased her around the store, eventually pinning her to the ground with his knees and tickled her. Prior to the incident where in pinned her to the floor she had made about ten complaints to the respondent, owner/ manager about him. She stated that she did not want to deal with that customer anymore. However, nothing was done about it. She was deeply distressed by the event. If it wasn’t for another employee pulling him off her she doesn’t know where it would have ended. She was given no support after the event either. The respondent took no action whatsoever. She simply stated that she would have a word with him but only after he had cleared his debt with the respondent. There was another incident when the complainant was asked by the respondent to take in pallets of food after a delivery. They were about 30kg each. She found it extremely difficult. She had to do it as there was nobody to assist her. When she was stacking the upper shelves, with no ladder or steps to help her reach, a bag of food product fell and hit her on the head. She fell and landed on her arm, injuring it. She carried out dog grooming in the store. The respondent provided her with a step on which to stand however it was not an anti-slip step. She slid off it on one occasion injuring herself. She complained but nothing was done about it. Eventually, another staff member gave her his anti- slip step. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
No Appearance. |
Findings and Conclusions:
It is clear from the complainant’s evidence that she was subjected to harassment by a third party who came into the store. She made several complaints about the man however all of her complaints were ignored. As a result of nothing being done, the situation was allowed to escalate and the complainant was assaulted by the man. This situation should never have been allowed to escalate. The respondent should have taken action after the complainant’s first complainant. Procedures should have been put in place to protect all employees from this type of behaviour. It is also clear that the respondent’s health and safety polices were deficient. Based on the complainant’s evidence it would seem that there were no procedures and/or training in relation to manual handling, lifting, stacking, grooming. As a result the complainant sustained a personal injury. The respondent should have trained all of her staff so that they could carry out their contractual duties in a safe manner. |
Decision:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
The respondent company is in liquidation. On that basis I will not make any recommendations in relation to the matter.
Dated: 15/11/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Niamh O'Carroll Kelly