Complainant

Respondent

Parties

José  Ferreira

Paragon Group

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

  Self-represented

Conor Duff B.L. instructed by Sherlock Law

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 67(5) of the Property Services (Regulation) Act 2011

CA-00057714-001

14/07/2023

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The complainant and three witnesses for the respondent undertook to give their evidence under affirmation. However, the respondent raised preliminary matters, and no evidence was taken from the witnesses for the respondent.  The representative for the respondent was offered to opportunity to put any questions he had to the complainant but did not avail of the opportunity.

The finalisation for this decision was delayed, in part, due to a family bereavement and, in part, due to the impact of Covid 19.

The respondent submitted that, as a preliminary matter, the complainant was taken under the Property Services (Regulation) Act, 2011 and that as the respondent was not a property services provider, no recourse could be sought under that Act.  Additionally, the respondent submitted that there was a lack of particularisation in the complaint form in that there was no reference to a disclosure.

The respondent submitted that from the narrative contained in the complaint form, the matter may also be time barred and finally, the respondent submitted that the complainant has not detailed any detriment he suffered.

In response to the issue of the non-statutory nature of the complaint form, the representative noted that even if the compliant was taken under the Protected Disclosures Act, the same issues would arise in that no disclosure was detailed, no detriment was outlined, no link between a purported disclosure and detriment was established and furthermore that under the Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Act, 2022 which came into effect on 1 January 2023, the two complaints detailed in additional submission of the complainant related to an interpersonal grievance and are outside the scope of that Act.  The Amendment Act, 2022 inserted the following into the principal Act:

(5A) A matter concerning interpersonal grievances exclusively affecting a reporting person, namely, grievances about interpersonal conflicts between the reporting person and another worker, or a matter concerning a complaint by a reporting person to, or about, his or her employer which concerns the worker exclusively, shall not be a relevant wrongdoing for the purposes of this Act and may be dealt with through any agreed procedures applicable to such grievances or complaint to which the reporting person has access or such other procedures, provided in accordance with any rule of law or enactment (other than this Act), to which the reporting person has access

The complainant submitted that he took two complaints for harassment against an Accounts Manager employed by the respondent.  He stated that he raised a compliant about his manager just prior to Christmas 2022.  He submitted that he raised a second complaint in May 2023 regarding the workload and confusion surrounding purchasing orders.

The respondent’s representative submitted that no detail has been provided in relation to this complaint. He further submitted that as the respondent was not a property services provider that the complaint was taken under the wrong act.  It was submitted that in the circumstances this complaint should not be upheld.  The respondent representative suggested that in all the circumstances a decision on these preliminary objections should issue from the WRC.

The complainant was asked to give details of the disclosure that he claims he made. He stated that he made complaints about his manager and had provided detail in his written statement. The written statement outlined two complaints made regarding his line manager, both of which refer to confusion regarding purchasing orders and a workload that was too burdensome. Nowhere was detail of a disclosure, let alone a protected disclosure, opened to the hearing.

On the basis of forgoing, I find that the complaint is not well founded.

Having regard to the written and oral evidence provided in relation to the hearing, I note that the respondent is not a property services provider, therefore my decision is that this complaint is misconceived.

Property Service Regulation Act – respondent not a property services provider – compliant misconceived.