ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00008551
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | An employee | A Service Provider |
Complaint:
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-00011252-001 | 11/05/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 28/11/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 following the referral of the complaint/dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint/dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to it.
Background:
The complainant contends that the respondent failed to fully investigate complaints made by him in relation to bullying and harassment. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant initially raised concerns about his treatment by one of the managers in 2012. Following inaction on the part of local management, the situation was finally investigated in 2015. That report acknowledged that there were some issues and put a protocol in place for future interactions between the complainant and the person he complained about. The complainant was unhappy with the report as he believed it failed to address his concerns. It dealt with a singular issue and did not address prior incidents nor the delay in having his complaints dealt with. A meeting took place between senior management and the complainant and his Union Official in February 2016. The Union side was asked to forward issues regarding the conduct of the manager. The Union did forward all the material and 21 months later there is still no response. It is contended that the Company’s failure to respond to the Union’s list of complaints is an abandonment of the duty of care it has for its staff, and that the company has failed in its duty of care to the complainant. The complainant seeks for a deadline to be set for the respondent to issue its report on the concerns raised and to compensate the complainant for the long delay which has caused stress for the complainant. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The complainant made a complaint in 2012 of ‘abuse fear and bullying’ from a named manager. The matter was investigated locally and following enquiries and discussion with witnesses, the local manager found no evidence to support the complainant’s complaint of bullying. The complainant raised the matter then with senior management and in 2013 and 2014 investigations were carried out. The company undertook a formal investigation in 2014 and issued the report in August 2014. The report referred to shortcomings in management style and recommended an appropriate programme for the manager concerned. The report found that the behaviour did not constitute bullying. The complainant disagreed with the findings and appealed to the Head of Employee Relations in December 2014. The company detailed its conclusion that the investigation team acted impartially and based their findings on witness testimony and verifiable evidence. The complainant submitted another complaint in October 2015. A HR Manager investigated and that manager concluded that no bullying was evident but suggested a protocol for both parties to ensure that informal communication between them could be carried out with mutual respect. The complainant was not interested in such a protocol. Later senior management met with the complainant and his union official. However, more issues than the one pertaining to the complainant were raised. The management sought for the union to forward on the various complaints. However, management received a handwritten document that was the outline of all the previous complaints from the complainant which had been fully investigated. The company’s position is that the complainant’s complaints were copiously examined at various levels and that in all the examinations there was no evidence of bullying. The union in arranging the meeting with senior management lost the opportunity of dealing with the complainant’s grievances when they raised broader issues which had not been subject to examination. The company’s view is that it took appropriate action in relation to the complainant’s complaints and his claim should not be upheld. |
Recommendation:
The complainant has rejected the findings of the various investigations into his complaints. Having reviewed the documentation, I find no reason to overturn any of the findings of the various investigating parties who conducted their investigations in a proper and professional manner. However, I note the union wrote to senior management on 9th May 2016 raising concerns of other staff in the area. So while the complainant’s complaints were dealt with by management, and he did not accept the outcomes, the particular behaviours he submitted were demonstrated may be included. There has been a long gap in following up on this, and the requirement to settle matters in the area is now quite urgent. I recommend that the respondent contact the union to agree a terms of reference for a way forward to deal with the issues in the area and that this takes place within six weeks of the date of this recommendation.
Dated: 5th April 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham