Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

An Employer

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

IR - SC - 00003402

11/11/2024

The dispute concerns the worker claims there were delays and a mishandling of workplace bullying complaints against his supervisor. The complaints were made in late 2019, were investigated, and the process concluded in April 2024.

The worker representative outlined the unnecessary delays in investigating the complaints. The complaints were investigated, appealed, and then re-investigated and re-appealed. He said that the handling of the complaints breached the timelines within the agreed policy. It was submitted that the complaints were not handled in a professional manner which contributed to the delays.

The worker representative claimed that the worker should be compensated for the inconvenience and distress caused.

The employer representative submitted that the policy was followed which ensured due process was afforded to both parties.

In the written submission, the employer representative acknowledged that there were some delays during the process. Although it was a lengthy process, the worker did not suffer a loss of earnings over the period.

The employer representative opposed the claim of compensation, particularly as there was no loss of earnings over the extended period of the investigations.

In conducting my investigation, I have considered all relevant submissions prior to and at the hearing.

Adjudication Role

As there are no specific statutory provisions on bullying, the guidance is in the ‘Code of Practice for Employers and Employees on the Prevention and Resolution of Bullying at Work’ (the Code). The agreed Anti-Bullying and Harassment Policy (Policy) within the employment is also relevant. Both parties accepted that the Adjudication role is to review whether the above Policy and Code were adhered to in the investigation of the complaints (from late 2019 to April 2024).

On the Adjudication role, the Code states on page 25-

‘The provision of Adjudication services under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 following the exhaustion of internal procedures (note: the grounds of referral to an Adjudication Officer are around the conduct of an investigation in terms of fairness and adherence to fair process and procedures).’

Delays

The training and experience of the internal investigators/appeal officers was raised at the hearing.

The first investigation was found to be flawed on appeal and another investigation ensued. The second investigation was then overturned on appeal. These conflicting outcomes tend to show that insufficient training was provided to investigators/appeal officers on investigating workplace complaints. At Section 8.4 of the Policy under the heading ‘Suitable Investigator will be chosen’, it states that ‘the person selected should have appropriate training and experience and be familiar with the procedures involved.’

Section 8.6 of the Policy has a heading ‘Non co-operation of person complained of’. This measure is important as an investigation/appeal can proceed even if one side does not co-operate. As there was non co-operation by one side when matters were re-investigated and then appealed, this aspect of the policy was not adhered to and contributed to the delays.

Section 8.6 of the Policy also has a heading ‘Right to be accompanied or represented’ which states that ‘The accompanying person must be a colleague, friend, family member or staff association representative’. This aspect of the policy was not adhered to as legal representations were permitted and the appropriateness of these were not questioned.

It was clarified at the hearing that the investigation was on hold from November 2022 to September 2023 for the investigation officer to obtain legal advice.

At the end of 2023, once an appeal was made, it took three months before submissions on appeal were requested from the other side.

As the senior investigating officer concluded in his findings that the investigations were not dealt with in a prompt and professional manner, the employer representative was unable to argue that there were no delays.

On reviewing the process, there was nothing to show that the worker contributed in any way to the delays.

Finding

When interpersonal complaints are made and investigations/appeals drag on, this only serves to erode trust and confidence in the process. It adds to the already stressful situation for those involved. The purpose of the policy is to ensure workers have an avenue to raise complaints which will be handled ‘sympathetically and promptly.’ This is emphasised in the Policy and the Code.

For the reasons outlined above, I find that there were multiple breaches of the Policy which contributed to the delays.

As the complaints were against a supervisor, I find that the delays contributed to the distress and inconvenience for the worker over a protracted period.

Redress

Despite the employer’s representative objections to financial compensation, I find that the only appropriate remedy is an award of compensation, particularly as the lengthy process has now been concluded.

Although the worker’s representative has cited Adjudication recommendations with various compensation awards, each case will have its own particular facts.

The Labour Court has awarded compensation in the case of HSE v A Worker LCR 22562, 1st March 2022, which is comparable to the inconvenience and distress caused to the worker in this case.

I recommend that the employer make a compensation award to the worker of €7,500.00, in full and final settlement of the dispute.

Investigation and appeal delays