ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00009862
Parties:
| Employer | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Clerical Worker | A Bus Company |
Representatives | Thomas O'Connor National Bus & Rail Union | Róisin Bradley IBEC |
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-00012925-001 | 02/08/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 26/10/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marian Duffy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.
Background:
The worker is a clerical worker and is employed by the company for seventeen years. She is alleging that she was bullied and harassed by a work colleague. She exhausted the internal grievance procedures. She said that the company did not address her concerns and deal with her complaint so that her work environment would be improved. The employer said that they investigated the grievances under their procedures and the complaints were not upheld. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The worker is employed as a clerical worker in a cash office in a bus company. She is 17 years with the company. Her union submitted that she reported various instances of disrespect, inappropriate behaviour, intimidation and other conduct perpetrated against her by a work colleague. She exhausted the internal grievance procedures within the company but she feels that the responses from the investigating manager and the HR services manager did not address her concerns or deal with them and improve her working environment. These events were the subject of an official grievance to management and it was heard on 28 March 2017. Some of the items contained in the complaint and explained in detail to the investigating operations manager were not followed through and not commented on in the findings letter. These omissions where again raised during an appeal of the investigation to the HR Service manager, but once again they were omitted from the HR manager’s report. The investigating officer found that the environment within the cash office work place was strained and tense. It was stated that although the worker named one person in her complaint as the person responsible for the treatment, that the other two co-workers were present and allowed the inappropriate behaviour to occur. According to the investigating manager’s findings they were not aware of any of the instances and did not see or hear anything incorrect. The employer has a statutory duty to ensure that the health and safety for all of their employees are safeguarded. The worker reported that she did not feel safe in her workplace and the official response from management was to ask her if she would like to go on a dignity and respect in the workplace refresher. Management were informed on the 4th of April 2017, that the worker was injured in an accident, involving the employee named in these matters and an incident report was filled out, but was not followed up by management. The worker is looking for a safe workplace free of inappropriate behaviour. She wants to be respected and safe in the knowledge that should she be unfortunate to be subjected to any abuses of any kind that the employer will protect her and not victimise her. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The worker is employed as a clerical worker and the company’s garage. She has been applied with the company for 17 years and she is a member of the union. Her work includes managing cash along with three other staff, medical appointments, inputting of accident data and other clerical duties. She works five days per week. The worker raised a formal complaint in line with the company’s grievance procedure on 2 March 2017. The complaints were raised against a work colleague about his alleged unacceptable behaviour including shouting use of aloud voice, rage, finger-pointing and belittling the employer. She also complained about pushing the cash table into a new position after she had positioned the table to her requirements. The worker also complained of being ignored while carrying out her cash counting duties and not being treated as an equal by all members of staff her complaint also included a complaint about the lack of intervention by the chief clerk. Following the receipt of the complaints, the employer appointed the area operations manager to investigate. It is submitted that the investigator carried out a very thorough investigation and interviewed all the team including the worker, the alleged perpetrator and her supervisor. None of the grievances were upheld. The investigator made recommendations in her report. She said that it is evident from speaking with the employees that the working relationships between them are strained and tense and there is a lack of trust and unity within the clerical team. She recommended a multifaceted approach to instigate a team building exercise and improve working relationships and positive communications with a view to creating a workable and enjoyable environment for all concerned. She made the following recommendations: i) A dignity and respect refresher training module to be a arranged and undertaken to address all areas of the working relationship to be undertaken by each member of the team; ii) A communications meeting to be arranged on a bimonthly basis; iii) that an independent company which responsibility for safe systems of work should review and recommend the safe position of the table; iv) that a review be undertaken by the management team and the clerical team after six months to identify improvements; v) if after a period of six months the working relationships has not improved the clerical team should be split and the worker and the person she complained about should be relocated to separate locations.
The company submitted that they attempted to invite all the four employees to a mediation process as per the recommendation of the investigation report that the employees should do a dignity and respect refresher training. The worker did not agree to attend because she was appealing the investigators report. The worker appealed the investigation report which was heard by the HR manager and the worker was represented by her union. They HR manager after enquiring from the worker why she did not attend the mediation, explained to her that it would be difficult to address the relationship problems between the team members if all the team members did not participate in the mediation. The employer explained that she just wanted to come to work and not talk to anybody. The HR manager upheld the findings of the investigator and the recommendations. The HR manager again asked the worker to fully cooperate with the recommendations of the report. He also contacted the worker’s manager to enquire if she would meet with the HR manager on a one-to-one basis to try and sort out the issues that were causing problems in the office. However, the employer refused, stating that it was too late for talking and that the matter had been referred to the Workplace Relations Commission. The employer submitted that the worker has maintained an uncooperative position with investigation’s recommendations and has made it known that she will not participate in mediation with her work colleagues. The employer stated that it is a loss at this stage in terms of how they can address this relationship without the worker’s participation in same. In conclusion, the employer stated it followed its procedures and investigated the complaints. The investigator carried out a rigorous and comprehensive investigation culminating in a fair and balanced report. The employer has endeavoured to implement the recommendations made by the investigator, but unfortunately the worker has thwarted these endeavours. The employer said that consideration should be given to the companies attempts to amend what is obviously a broken relationship between the worker and her colleagues in the cash office and they are such that the findings/recommendations of the investigation should be upheld. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The company carried out an investigation into the complaints made by worker under the Grievance Policy & Procedures and did not uphold her complaints and her appeal was also unsuccessful. The worker is dissatisfied with the outcome of the investigation and believes that the investigator did not deal withal her complaints. I note that in an industrial case, Bord Gais Eireann and a Worker AD1377, the Labour Court stated: “It is not the function of the Court to form a view on the merits of complaints giving rise to these investigations nor can it substitute its views for those of the investigators appointed in either case. Rather, the role of the Court is to establish if the procedure used by the company conformed to the generally accepted standards of fairness and objectivity that would normally be used in cases such as these." Therefore, it is not my function to form any view on the merits of complaints referred and investigated by the company’s investigator. There is no indication that the company failed to follow their own Grievance Procedures. In my opinion the investigation was properly conducted, the matters for investigation were agreed between the parties and that it conformed with best practice and the accepted standards of fairness and objectivity. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
The report makes a number of recommendations which the company have asked the worker to cooperate with in their implementation. I recommend that the worker cooperate with the management and partake in the training and all other team building exercises recommended in the investigation report so that the working relationships within the team can be improved and re-established. I also recommend that the worker should take up the offer of the one to one meeting with the HR Services Manager in order to devise a strategy to improve the working environment and to sort out the issues which are of concern to her. I would urge the worker to co-operate fully with this process. I also recommend that the employer should consider bringing in an external consultant to assist with the overall resolution of the issues. |
Dated: 2nd February 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marian Duffy
Key Words:
Section 13 Industrial relations, bullying, investigation, |