Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Clerical Officer

A Public Service Body

Representatives

  Forsa

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 - 00003426

15/11/2024

On November 28th, 2023,  the complainant says that he was assaulted in the workplace by a colleague. He made a formal complaint, and an initial investigation by a HR manager took place over a two week period.

This investigation recommended processing under the Grievance policy. The respondent (in the allegations) was asked to leave the workplace during investigation but returned after two weeks. 

On February 20th  2024 the conclusions were that the allegations were not proven.  Counter allegations had been made by the respondent in the and the complainant believes these counter allegations had an undue influence on the outcome, even though they had not been investigated.

The complainant continued to work from home for health reasons and received commitments that the respondent in the matter would move to a new area and the investigation and how it was conducted would be reviewed. This was agreed by both unions involved and HR.

However there has been no change and the respondent has not moved and has recently indicated to local management he will not move (and not honour the agreement of June 2024). 

The complainant still works from home. But his mental health has been adversely affected as result of not being able to attend my workplace for over nine months. The complainant has 37 years of good service and a clean record, and he is very disappointed by how this has been handled by the company. 

On November 28th , 2023, the complainant  reported an incident of assault in the workplace involving another staff member. A formal complaint was lodged, and an initial investigation was conducted by HR.

The investigation concluded that while the allegations warranted further review, there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the claims.

While the investigation was under way the person against whom the complaint was made was removed from the immediate work are as a precautionary measure without prejudice to the outcome the investigation. As the outcome of the investigation was not conclusive the person against whom the complaint was made was returned to the workplace.

Counter-allegations were filed by the person against whom the complainant made his complaint, and these too lacked sufficient evidence to warrant further action. Continuing grievances were reported by the complainant, including accusations of intimidation and workplace tensions, which were monitored but which would substantiate further action being taken by the company.

The company maintains that all actions undertaken in this matter followed its established procedures and policies, including an unbiased investigation. In each instance the company has sought to balance the respective rights of the parties and has extended presumption of innocence to the parties until the contrary is proved.

It acknowledges the involvement of several parties, including the complainant, the person complained about and their union representatives. There is a common view that relationships are not good, and efforts should be made to resolve these.

The company met each person and their union representative to discuss a possible separation of the parties, but these discussions were not successful.

Each employee has an obligation to behave in a professional manner towards their work colleagues regardless of their personal views of each other and each should attend and behave professionally towards each other. The area they work in is supervised and managers can address issues as they arise. Comprehensive efforts were made to investigate and address the allegations.

The lack of conclusive evidence meant no action could be taken. Continuous support was extended, to ensure the complainant's welfare and engagement through formal communication channels.

The company acknowledges that there is a work place issue and has been seeking resolve it.

The alternative of moving a party against their wishes and those of their respective unions’ representatives is not acceptable and to achieve a voluntary resolution may well require mediation between the two individuals and their representatives with the help of an experienced mediator.

We would ask to WRC to recommend this to the complainant, and the company will again engage with the other individual and his union representative to ascertain if they are open to such an intervention. While this matter is being addressed and subject to medical advice, we would ask to also recommend to the complainant  that he return to the work place on a without prejudice basis.

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

This case is a useful indication of the potential value of referrals under this legislation.

While adjudication under the Industrial Relations Act is not mediation, nonetheless the consent based nature of such referrals occasionally open up the possibility for an exploration of means of resolving the dispute between the parties where there is an appetite for doing so.

This is such a case, and the parties are to be commended for the spirit in which they approached the matter.

Inter-personal conflict between co-workers is among the most difficult to resolve. Some of the reasons will be obvious especially when they result from a breakdown in friendships and long running working relationships.

This form of conflict is closer in its nature to family conflict than, say commercial disputes which are often simple enough negotiations about money.

Regrettably, the third party involved in this matter, the colleague who was subject of the initial allegations by the complainant, was not ‘in the room’ for the hearing or a party to the referral.

Nonetheless those who were present demonstrated much good will and a strong desire to see a resolution of the issues, which is a helpful, indeed vital starting point.

I propose therefore to recommend that the parties to this hearing (and with his agreement, the third party) give serious consideration to the engagement of a suitably qualified and experienced mediator.

If it is helpful, I recommend that they all agree to separate preliminary information meetings with a professional mediator before reaching any final decision on whether or not to participate.

There is a regrettable, and very erroneous view that the consent principle in mediation confers the right on a party to arbitrarily veto the process. It does not.  The consent required should be informed by a proper understanding of the nature and potential of the mediation process, which is often absent.

Of course, if the parties are willing to proceed direct to mediation, they may dispense with this information step.

Inter-personal dispute, Mediation