Case Number: ADJ-00000180. Workplace Relations Commission

• Docket Number: ADJ-00000180
• Date: 23 February 2016
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission
• Parties: An Employee -v- An Employer

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00000180

Complaint(s)/Dispute(s) for Resolution:

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946	CA-00000235-001	14/10/2015

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 10/02/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Joe Donnelly

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

Serious delays in dealing with a bullying complaint, the investigation was unnecessary delayed and the person involved has since retired.

The respondent was in breach of their Dignity at Work policy whereby an employee should be informed in writing of the outcome of the preliminary screening within seven working days. The complainant was not made aware of the outcome for six months.

The complainant attempted to resolve the situation internally but those mediation efforts did not address the issue.

The respondent did not adequately engage in the process which is designed to deal with complaints expeditiously and with minimum distress for the complainant.

It took three years to have the complaints investigated and it is unfair to allow an employee to continue to work in an intimidating environment.

The investigation upheld the complaints but at this stage the person who was the subject of the complaints had retired so no action was taken as a result of the investigation.

The complainant received no explanation as regards the delay in investigating the issue.

The respondent therefore increased the stress on the complainant and she should be compensated in this regard.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

The initial complaint was received in June 2013 but it was July before the actual details of the complaint were received.

Local management referred the complaint to the Regional HR Dept. with a request for a preliminary screening to establish if the matter should proceed to formal investigation.

On August 30, 2013, the screening report issued confirming that the matter should be formally investigated.

Unfortunately the local manager went on sick leave and was not replaced due to the moratorium on recruitment.

The manager resumed duties in mid-January 2014 and on 14 March advised the complainant of the outcome of the screening and offered mediation.

Having being advised by the complainant’s union of her desire for a...