Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

An Employer

Representatives

  N/A

Judy McNamara IBEC

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 - 00001938

30/10/2023

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

IR - SC - 00001939

30/10/2023

The Worker referred two disputes to the WRC for investigation, namely that a sanction of a verbal warning had been unfairly imposed on him and that he had been bullied by several other workers.

IR - SC – 00001938:

The Worker alleged that on 27th July 2023, the HR Specialist unfairly issued him with a verbal warning, which was subsequently upheld by the HR Director on appeal. This disciplinary process began with an investigation into the Worker’s “performance to date,” initiated by the Production Manager on 13th July 2023, immediately following the conclusion of an investigation into the Production Manager’s behaviour, following a complaint by the Worker.

The subsequent disciplinary meeting on 24th July 2023 and the appeal hearing on 7th September 2023 were conducted in a biased manner. The Worker contends that he was subjected to unfair procedures and unfounded accusations, and that the verbal warning he received was unfair.

IR - SC – 00001939:

The Worker asserted that following an incident on 29th May 2023 and his subsequent complaint regarding the Production Manager’s inappropriate and unsafe behaviour on that day, he became the target of excessive monitoring, unfair treatment, and baseless accusations. He believes the investigation into his performance, launched by the Production Manager shortly after the investigation into the Production Manager’s conduct, was an act of bullying.

As a result of the biased investigation, the HR Specialist issued a verbal warning on 27th July 2023, with the HR Director’s support. The Worker alleges that the Production Manager, HR Specialist, and HR Director abused their authority by weaponising administrative procedures and unfounded accusations to bully him for raising a complaint against management.

The Worker describes the bullying he experienced as encompassing:

1. Excessive monitoring of his work;
2. Abuse of power and humiliation;
3. Ignoring his reports, explanations, and requests;
4. Unfair procedures during the investigation, disciplinary, and appeal stages;
5. Baseless accusations;
6. Manipulation of information obtained from him;
7. Misapplication of company rules;
8. Manipulation of his job responsibilities and targets;
9. Devaluation of his work achievements; and
10. Blame for issues beyond his control.

Together, these actions created a sustained environment of persecution, causing the Worker to feel bullied.

The Employer failed to prevent the Production Manager’s bullying, which not only continued but worsened. Furthermore, the HR Specialist and HR Director, who supported the Production Manager, participated in the bullying of the Worker.

IR - SC – 00001938:

On 11th July 2023, the Production Manager invited the Worker to an investigation meeting concerning his performance. Investigation meetings were held on 13th July and 20th July 2023. These led to a disciplinary hearing on 24th July, chaired by the HR Specialist and attended by the Worker with accompaniment. The Worker was informed by letter dated 27th July 2023 that a verbal warning had been imposed for six months.

The Worker appealed the verbal warning on 2nd August 2023. An appeal hearing took place on 7th September 2023, with the outcome letter dated 8th September 2023 upholding the warning. The letter detailed the reasons for the sanction and the expected performance and behavioural improvements.

IR - SC – 00001939:

On 29th May 2023, the Worker was taken by ambulance to hospital after experiencing chest pain, which he reported to several colleagues as being related to a discussion with the Production Manager. The Employer made multiple attempts to arrange a meeting with the Worker to understand what had occurred on 29th May 2023.

In a letter dated 5th June 2023, the Worker described the events of that day. He stated that he began work at 6 a.m., during which he encountered repeated operational difficulties, causing him to log out of the machine he was operating several times. The Production Manager first approached him at his workstation to check if an alarm was active, then moved on. Later, the Production Manager returned, asked why the Worker had logged out, and, after being told no materials were coming to the workstation, the Worker logged back in and resumed work.

The Worker claimed that the Production Manager then stood behind him, giggled, and said, “He knows that today is Monday and he knows why I logged out of the system.” This behaviour made the Worker very uncomfortable, and he told the Production Manager to leave him alone. When a further machine issue arose, the Worker informed the Supervisor of the problem and also told her that the Production Manager was “unnecessarily picking on him and preventing him from working.” Shortly thereafter, the Worker began to feel pain on the left side of his body, near his heart. He was taken to hospital and certified as unfit for work for seven days.

The Worker’s letter to HR concluded with the assertion that the stressful situation and bullying behaviour from the Production Manager caused his sudden health deterioration and prevented him from working for over a week. The medical certification for his absence cited “muscular chest pain,” with the Worker deemed fit to return on 12th June 2023.

A meeting to review the events of 29th May was held on 16th June 2023, with a HR Specialist assigned to conduct the review. Statements were obtained from multiple parties, including the HR Specialist, and CCTV footage was examined to establish the timeline. The written outcome, issued to the Worker on 29th June 2023, concluded that after a full investigation, including all statements and CCTV evidence, no bullying, harassment, or mocking behaviour was found. The Worker was invited to discuss any further concerns but did not respond.

The Employer disputed that the Worker had been bullied by any employee and stated that the only bullying complaint made by him was against the Production Manager in relation to conduct on 29th May 2023 only and in respect of which the outcome was issued on 29th June 2023. It was highlighted that the Worker did not make any bullying complaint against any other worker.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

IR - SC – 00001938:

This complaint related to the imposition of a verbal warning, which was issued to the Worker on 27 July 2023 and which remained on his file for a period of six months.

As the warning has now expired, I recommend that the Worker deems this dispute to be closed.

IR - SC – 00001939:

The Code of Practice for Employers and Employees on the Prevention and Resolution of Bullying at Work defines bullying as:

“Repeated inappropriate behaviour, whether direct or indirect, verbal, physical, or otherwise, carried out by one or more persons against another or others, at the workplace and/or during employment, which could reasonably be seen as undermining an individual’s right to dignity at work.”

I noted that the Worker only initiated the Employer’s grievance procedure based on inappropriate behaviour by the Production Manager on 29 May 2023. Since this alleged behaviour occurred on a single occasion, it does not meet the definition of bullying as outlined in the Code of Practice, which requires repeated behaviour.

Regarding the alleged bullying incidents occurring after 29 May 2023, the Worker highlighted additional instances involving the Production Manager, as well as further incidents involving the HR Specialist and the HR Director. However, the Worker did not invoke the Employer’s grievance procedure in respect of any of these subsequent allegations.

It is well established however that before bringing a grievance to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), a Worker must firstly exhaust the internal procedures available at their workplace. In Gregory Geoghegan trading as TAPS v. A Worker INT1014, the Labour Court held: “The Court is not prepared to insert itself into the procedural process in a situation where the dispute procedures have been bypassed.”

Given that the internal procedures have not been exhausted with respect to the bullying allegations after 29 May 2023, I am unable to intervene in the procedural process.