ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969

Investigation Recommendation Reference:  IR - SC - 00001874

Parties: 

Dispute:

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Date of Hearing:              14/01/2025 and 26/03/2025

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended)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 information relevant to the dispute. The matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

Background:

The Worker was employed as a Training Instructor by the Employer from 13th February 1995.   She has been on long term sick leave since 5th March 2016.  She has a number of complaints regarding alleged bullying and harassment and the Employers failure in investigate.

Summary of Workers Case:

The Worker said she has been trying to have complaints investigated regarding a fellow worker who she said subjected her to bullying and harassment.  The details of the bullying were recounted by her in the complaint form and in documentation supplied.  In that, she stated that a work colleague had subjected her to degrading treatment, had flung a tennis ball in her face and had eaten food especially provided for her as a Vegetarian, leaving her with no food. She said that she had a number of meetings with various Chairpersons of the Board and Management of the Training Centre.  She had a breakdown after her mother died suddenly in 2016 and she could not return to the workplace given the situation as described.   She said she made a verbal complaint to the Acting Manager of the Centre and the then Chairperson of the Board in 2017.  The Worker submitted many documents showing that a meeting was held between her, her Union Official, the Chairperson of the Board of Management and the Manager of the Centre in 2017.  The Employer asked her to submit the details of her complaint in writing. She did submit a 2 page letter outlining her complaints, and sent it by registered letter to the Manager of the Centre.  She did not have the receipt to hand but was certain she sent it.  She has had many referrals to Doctors, Psychiatrists and various professionals, and has dealt with at least 4 Chairpersons of the Board of Management since the situation began in 2016.     She is now aware that her course has closed, her portfolio of work has never been returned to her and she has felt very aggrieved and isolated by the fact that the Employer has failed to investigate her complaints, and has offered no support or mediation to resolve and close this dispute.

Summary of Employer’s Case:

At the hearing on 14th January 2025 and in previous and subsequent correspondence, the Employer stated that this and other complaints from the Worker are statute barred and should not be entertained.   At the hearing in January 2025, one of the Representatives of the Respondent stated that that he was aware there was a ‘falling out’ between staff in the Centre, neither of which was the Worker in this case.

It was submitted that the Worker has been on sick leave now for over 9 years.   There has been no formal complaint in writing from the Worker. They sent her the Centre’s Grievance and Bullying & Harassment policies and submitted correspondence to show they had requested details of the complaint in writing in letters dated 18th August 2020, 18th October 2020, 8th February 2021 and 21st July 2021.  They cannot respond to the situation now after all this time and request that the Worker’s claim be dismissed.

They referred to their letter dated 18th June 2024 where they submitted in writing that they objected to the claim being heard.

Conclusions:

Preliminary

A preliminary matter was raised by the Respondent which I address as follows:

In relation to the assertion by the Respondent that the complaint should not be heard and that they had objected to such, I wish to point out the following:

The complaint was received by the WRC on 12th October 2023.

The completed complaint form was sent by WRC to the Respondent on 24th May 2024.

By signed form dated 4th June 2024, the Manager of the Centre ticked the box stating, “I do not object to an investigation of this dispute”.

By letter dated 18th June 2024, the Manager of the Centre wrote to WRC with the Respondent’s position that the referral of the dispute under the Industrial Relations Act 1969 is statute barred and further, an objection to the matter being investigated was recorded.

The following is the position in relation to the Industrial Relations Act 1969:

Under Section 36(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990, any party has the right to object to an investigation of this dispute by an Adjudication Officer within 21 days of the date of the letter from WRC dated 24th May 2024.   As can be seen from the dates above, the Respondent initially indicated no objection (on 4th June 2024), and then indicated an objection (on 18th June 2024).  As the objection was received more than 21 days after notification of the dispute, the matter proceeded to hearing.  Referral of disputes under the Industrial Relations Act do not carry a time limit with the exception of retired workers covered in Section 26A of the 1990 Act (as revised).

Substantive

These referrals concern the Worker’s allegations that she suffered bullying and harassment in her workplace which were ongoing from at least 2015/2016 and which were never investigated.  She had service from 13th February 1995 and at the point when she went on sick leave on 5th March 2016, had almost 21 years’ service.

The Worker submitted a verbal complaint and the Employer contended they never received a written complaint and therefore were not in a position to investigate.   

At the first hearing in January 2025 the Worker referred to a two-page document in which she detailed her complaints to the Employer.  That document was to be produced for the following hearing in March 2025 but was never produced.  She did however state her clear recollection of having sent her detailed complaints by registered letter to the Employer.

The Employer contended that despite asking the Worker to outline her complaints in writing she never did submit a formal complaint which could be investigated. This is an irreconcilable conflict of information. I note the various difficulties which prevented the Worker from returning to work.  At one point in August 2018, a medical/occupational health assessment deemed her to be fit to return but unresolved issues were preventing that. 

At this point the Worker has been on sick leave and invalidity pension for some 8 or 9 years and it is unlikely she can return to work.  I understand she needs some closure to this long-standing situation.

I suggest that both parties need closure to this long running dispute.  At this point in time, an investigation into issues that arose some 9 years ago would not likely be possible to complete in a thorough manner.  It appears that the course she taught has been closed.   In those circumstances,                I recommend that the Employer should offer the Worker a redundancy package which will take into account her service from 13th February 1995 until the date of the closure of the course if applicable.

Recommendation:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

I recommend that the Employer should offer the Worker a redundancy package which will take into account her service up to the date the course she taught was closed.

Dated:   22/05/25

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Key Words: