This website contains decisions and determinations of both the Labour Court and the WRC. It also contains decisions and recommendations of the Equality Tribunal since 1996 and post 2007 determinations of the Employment Appeals Tribunal. For more information click here

  Return to Search

ADJ-00007080

 

 

 

 

ADJUDICATION RECOMMENDATION

 

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00007080

Parties:

 

 

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Postal Operative

Postal Company

 

 

Disputes:

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-00009617-001

09/02/2017

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

CA-00009617-002

09/02/2017

 

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 11/09/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 following the referral of the disputes to me by the Director General, I inquired into the disputes and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the disputes.

 

Background:

The Complainant is employed as a Postal Operative since 2009. He is paid €600 per week. He has claimed that his manager had inappropriately used the CCTV and his ‘phone to take photos and screenshots of him. He has also made a complaint about the way his manager has treated him.

1)CA 9617-001; inappropriately used the CCTV and phone to take photos and screenshots

Summary of Employee’s Case:

There have been longstanding industrial relations difficulties in this depot, which has led to a toxic atmosphere. Relationships between local management and staff deteriorated to such an extent that a dispute was almost inevitable. Meetings between the union representatives and management have brought about an improvement in relations. A mechanism was agreed to deal with matters of concern. Any outstanding matters would then be referred to the WRC. This case arises from this process.

The Employee has complained about the way that he has been treated by management not just in relation to the CCTV and photos also about the manner in speaking to him and the way that they apologised to him.

Summary of Employer’s Case:

It is accepted that the industrial relations environment was challenging and verging on being terminally broken. Relations between management and some staff were strained. Following interventions by both the union and management relationships have improved.

On 2nd February 2016 they received a complaint from the Employee regarding the manager viewing the CCTV footage and taking images on his phone. The HR Manager met the Employee and his representative on 4th February 2016.The HR Manager set out the reasons for the review of the footage. There had been serious concerns that there had been unauthorised sharing of a report that had prompted the Manager to review the footage. The HR Manager acknowledged that the Manager’s actions were wrong and it was agreed that a meeting would take place between them to resolve the matter.

 

2)CA 9617-002 The way his manager has treated him. 

Summary of Employee’s Case:

The Employee believes that there has been a manipulation of overtime for the Christmas period in this depot. There is an agreement that each Operative receives the same level of overtime. He highlighted discrepancies where he believed that certain individuals were receiving a higher portion of the overtime pool. On a regular basis he would have to go to his manager to deal with queries. He noticed that any time he went to the office the CCTV monitor was fixed on the locker enclosure. He observed the manager rewinding the CCTV footage and taking snapshots with his personal ‘phone. He felt that this was contrary to the Data Protection Act and was using this for his own purposes. He reported this to the HR Manager. A meeting was eventually arranged with his manager and his manager decided that the Complainant was the problem in this depot and proposed to remove him from the office but this was overturned following representation. The Head of Industrial Relations reported that his grievances were not fully investigated in line with company policy and should be properly investigated. No investigation has taken place and it’s his position that this matter has been swept under the carpet. He believes that he has been the subject of unfair treatment compounded by the company’s failure to investigate his concerns. The misuse of the CCTV has never been denied or acknowledged. He is seeking an explanation from management for its actions. He is seeking the investigation to be carried out along the lines as recommended by the Head of Industrial Relations. He is seeking to award some redress for the treatment that he received.

 

Summary of Employer’s Case:

It is accepted that the industrial relations environment was challenging and verging on being terminally broken. Relations between management and some staff were strained.

The Employee made a written complaint on 21st October 2015 about his manager ignoring him, victimisation because of an incident concerning another employee, as follows: On 12th October he was challenged by the Working Leader regarding his break time in a tone that was belittling and intimidating. On 13th October 2015 the Working Leader undermined him by checking to see if work had been left behind by him. The Work Leader acted aggressively in a dispute about a radio at work. He was mocked and belittled him following a complaint.

A meeting took place on 18th November 2015 with the HR Manager, following which separate enquiries were undertaken. A further meeting took place on 11th December 2015 with the Complainant and his union representative. They were provided with an update on their enquiries. It was agreed that a meeting would take place with the Working Leader and the Employee to resolve matters. The Employer was satisfied that matters were resolved. At a meeting on 4th February 2016 concerning a separate matter the Employee stated that he had a difficulty with the way his Working Leader had apologised to him. This was not what had been agreed in December. The Working Leader approached him at work and said he was sorry for the way he had treated him. The Employee said that he had accepted the apology. The Employer did not believe it was appropriate to re-open the matter given that the apology had been accepted.

 

 

Findings and Conclusions: CA 9617-001 & 002

I note the history of bad relations between management and workers in this depot.

I note the efforts of both sides to address this problem.

I note that progress has been made in this regard.

I am not convinced that the Leader was monitoring the Employee using the CCTV, given the explanation by management.

I accept the explanation given by the Employer.

I note management’s position that the Working Leader had acted wrongly in how he handled the interactions with the Employee.

I find that this matter has come to the surface because of the festering bad relationship between the parties and in particular these two people, the Employee and the Working Leader.

I note that the Working Leader apologised but sometime later the Employee advised management that it was not done wholeheartedly.

I find that this arose later because of the residual distrust that needs to be cleansed.

Recommendation:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

I recommend that both parties agree to a face to face meeting accompanied by the full time union official and a company executive/HR Manager.

I recommend that a full and frank meeting should take place and these matters should be put to an end.

I recommend that both parties seriously address any negative perceptions that they have of each other and strive to dispense with these perceptions.

I recommend that both parties commit to an open and normal working relationship going forward.

I recommend that if either party believes that the other has breached this commitment to an open and normal working relationship they should raise a specific grievance which should be addressed between the full time official and an executive of the company.

 

 

 

Dated:   15.11.2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly

Key Words: