Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Telephone Salesperson

Telephone Sales Company

Representatives

Peter Dunlea of Peninsula

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 - 00002248

15/02/2024

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

IR - SC - 00002249

15/02/2024

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

IR - SC - 00002250

15/02/2024

The complainant says he was badly treated  and discriminated against following an incident with a colleague on 11 January 2024.

The worker says that on 11 January 2024 he had a disagreement with a colleague and when he told her he was dyslexic she verbally attacked him. He felt trapped at his work station by her aggressive behaviour. She carried on despite his requests for her to “get out of my face”. There was no intervention from the supervisor. He says he raised his voice to get her away from him. The complainant felt he had no option but to leave work. The Director asked him to stay and chat but the worker says he was in no fit state to calmly have a discussion.

The following day he was called in to work by the Operations Manager and given an unsigned written warning with the HR Manager’s name at the bottom. The worker says there was no investigation. The Operations Manager told him there was too much work involved if he brought HR into the matter. He was told the matter was over and expected to return to work as if nothing had happened. He was also threatened with instant termination if another incident arose. He understood the colleague involved in the incident was given the same letter.

The worker questioned the decision to give him a warning, given the harassment he suffered. The Operations Manager told him he was welcome to leave if he did not like the outcome. He was also told that “under normal circumstances” his contract would have been terminated, however, as the complainant was excelling at sales he decided to make an exception.

The worker says he was not happy with the outcome and the Operations Manager told him a referral to HR was not an option.

The worker had a week’s holiday during which he reflected on the situation and realised the job he was hoping to make a career of, had been undermined, along with his right to work free of harassment and discrimination. On his return he contacted the HR Manager saying he wanted to file a grievance. Verbally, the HR Manager said the worker had been in the wrong and procedures had been followed.

The worker advised the HR Manager that he was in the process of referring a complaint to the WRC, as he had not been offered the option to have his grievance investigated by the employer.

The worker sent the HR Manager an account of what had happened on 11 February 2024 and he replied saying they would look into the matter and an Employee Handbook was made available.

He saw a doctor and was signed off for 6 weeks. He resigned on 25 March 2024.

At the hearing the employer said there was a dispute between two colleagues and they were both treated the same. They accept the worker should have been given a better explanation of the initial investigation. When the worker raised a grievance with the HR Manager a full investigation was initiated. Unfortunately, the worker did not take part in the investigation and resigned before the investigation could be concluded.

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

There was dispute between the worker and a colleague. From the evidence given it seems the Operations Manager tried to deal with matter as quickly as possible. However, this did not include asking the worker what happened. The worker felt that, these circumstances, being given a written warning was not fair.

The employer seems to accept this and at the hearing apologised to the worker for what happened in the immediate aftermath of the incident. Subsequently, the HR Manager did initiate an investigation but no outcome was reached as the worker did not take part and then resigned.

I am sure the employer’s apology was welcomed by the worker and I acknowledge their efforts to carry out an investigation. I also acknowledge the worker’s testimony that he went on sick leave and then resigned because of how aggrieved he felt at his initial treatment. Firstly, because his supervisor made no effort to intervene. Then, secondly, by the Operations Manager sanctioning him without giving him the opportunity to put his case forward.

The apology from the employer is welcome. However, they are responsible for the training and behaviour of managers. Appropriate action at the initial stage could have resulted in the worker staying in their employment. The worker says he was enjoying the work and was performing well. This treatment caused a major change in his life which might have been avoided with good employment practice.

I acknowledge the worker did not take part in the investigation. He was on sick leave and resigned before returning to work. In other circumstances the decision by a worker not to take part in internal procedures can be fatal to a claim under the Industrial Relations Act 1969. However, in this case, based on his initial treatment, I understand the worker had no confidence his grievance would be fairly heard.

Unfair treatment at initial stage