ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00008888
Parties:
Representatives | In Person | IBEC |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Schedule 2 of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014 | CA-00011813-001 | 08/06/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 18/09/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael Hayes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and the abovementioned Act, following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Background:
The respondent has employed the complainant as a product builder since 3rd of June 1997. She is paid €437 net and works 39 hours per week. The parties made written and oral submission to the hearing. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant submits that on the 5th of October 2016 arising from an interaction with a work colleague (details provided) relating to her training and his behaviour in contravention of company policy she went to her supervisor who refused to support her or act upon the complaint she made. She subsequently became ill and was out of work until the 7th of March 2017. In the interim she was unable to progress her complaint any further until contacted by Occupational in January 2017 after which she met with HR and she explained the nature and extent of her complaint by reading a prepared statement. An investigation was launched thereafter and she received the result of the investigation on the 13th of March. She appealed the result to the Production Unit Manager whom she met on the 30th of March and for a second time on the 12th of April. She explained at the second meeting that she was unhappy with the investigation as it relied solely on the notes of one of the contributors. Thereafter she was threatened with potential disciplinary action on foot of an allegation made by a co-worker concerning my time and attendance. Her supervisor was appointed to conduct a parallel investigation under the corrective action policy and she was eventually vindicated. The complainant asserts that the 2nd investigation was wholly inappropriate and it was done in retaliation for her original complaint. There was no written allegation and it was used to threaten her and defend and exonerate the actions of a third party. Furthermore, the process was flawed. These events have taken a toll on the complainant’s health. The complainant submits that her complaint arises from the fact that the respondent’s Training Procedures and Policies have been breached including protocols in relation to training logs and train the trainer procedures with knock on affect as it relates to other statutory provisions and the respondent’s code of conduct policy which prohibits retaliation for reporting of relevant breaches. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent submits by way of preliminary issue that the complaints which are alleged to be protected disclosures in this case are not so, can’t be claimed as relevant wrongdoing within the meaning of the Act and that the complaint is therefore misconceived. In this regard the alleged relevant wrongdoing arises under contract which is specifically precluded under s. 5 (3) (b) of the Act – “that a person has failed, is failing or is likely to fail to comply with any legal obligation, other than one arising under the worker’s contract of employment or other contract whereby the worker undertakes to do or perform personally any work or service……” The herein complaint arises from her perception that she was threatened at her grievance meeting of the 12th of April concerning a matter which was unrelated but was to do with the time and attendance policy. It is accepted that the manager explained that it would be necessary to initiate an investigation under the policy and that disciplinary action could ensue however it is denied that there was any threat of disciplinary action. In any event the investigation concluded and the allegations were found to be unsubstantiated. The respondent relies upon the Code of Practice on Protected Disclosures Act 2014 to validate its argument referring inter alia to the ‘distinction between a protected disclosure and a grievance’ and relevant examples given in the Code. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The alleged wrongdoing complained of here is not a “relevant wrongdoing” within the meaning of the Act. It relates to provisions contained in the complainant’s contract of employment and therefore the complaint is misconceived. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
The complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 4 April 2018