Case Number: ADJ-00006522. Workplace Relations Commission

• Docket Number: ADJ-00006522
• Hearing Date: 12 July 2019
• Date: 22 October 2019
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission
• Parties: An Employee v A limited Company
• Respondent: A limited Company

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION and RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00006522

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	An Employee	A limited Company

Representatives Robin McKenna IBEC

Complaint(s):

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Schedule 2 of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014	CA-00008858-001	20/12/2016
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969	CA-00008858-002	20/12/2016

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 12/07/2019

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Niamh O'Carroll Kelly

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

Introduction to my background:- ● Commenced employment locum relief Care Assistant 2001. ● 2010 I was granted a permanent part-time contract as Supervisor/Instructor. ● Moved to Parkxxxxx in 2013 with service user I supported. ● In December 2008, I was awarded by the Labour Court a contract of 78hrs fortnightly, this was never implemented by BOC. Adjudicator ● On 21 April 2016 I sent my letter to E.T. (HR Manager) outlining my grievances. ● On 29 April, E.T. responded to my letter. ● 13 May 2016 I emailed S.C. (Union Rep) about my concerns re the time delay in the process of the investigations. It exceeded 7 working days as according to grievance policy. ● The investigations into the incident that occurred in March did not occur until the beginning of May 2016 – concluding in September. ● Final transcript was signed off on 28 September 2016. ● I did not receive the transcript until 6 weeks after the date, 24 October 2016. After engaging with a solicitor, it took two requests by Ms O before B.L. National Head of Human Resources, BOC, acknowledged Ms O’s letter sending a copy of Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures. Throughout all stages of the Grievance Policy, it states “no longer than 7 days to respond to employee”. This all accounted for the time delay in submitting my complaint on 20 December 2016. I strongly dispute any rights commissioner not entertaining my complaint. Were fair procedures carried out by BOC? ● During the investigation by L.M., LM stated that R.B. was not present in Pool Room when incident occurred. R.B. stated that he checked the CCTV to clarify his whereabouts at the time of the incident. ● I would like to know why RB was awarded such privileges to view CCTV when it was not RB who was under investigation or facing possible disciplinary offence at the time. Ref: 8.8.2 of CCTV Policy of Guidelines Ref: 8.9.2 of CCTV Policy of Guidelines ● The CCTV is there on the farm as a security purpose only not for a person to verify whether or not they were in a certain place at a certain time. ● RB went to great lengths to prove his loyalty to his work colleagues by breaching Data Protection. The person who gave him permission to do so is equally at fault. I do not consider this as fair procedure. Failing to meet with the National Head of HR ● On 25 of October, I asked S.C. (Union Rep) on my behalf to notify B.L. my intentions (email to hand). I did not want to meet again with Mr L and to further engage in an internal process. I felt at times Mr. L’s attitude was not one of a professional manner when he made comments such as “if J had a magic wand” of if “he had a degree from Harvard, what would you like him to do?” Knowing that key details were omitted from the report, whether by design or error of the investigator Mr B. L. The interviewing of persons not involved with grievances is especially troubling, considering the fact that witnesses central to the T.B. complaints were not interviewed. ● What criteria determined the selection of witnesses to be interviewed? A full and thorough investigation was not conducted. Background to the Claim ● As stated, I wrote to HR S.K. requesting a transfer in December 2013. HR never acknowledged this letter, if an acknowledgement had occurred and a meeting arranged I would have outlined my reasons for requesting a transfer. According to the Grievance policy, this letter should have been acknowledged within 7 working days. ● On 19 February, I again wrote to S.K requesting a transfer “this was declined”. However another employee who was having ongoing unresolved issues with LT was offered a transfer by HR to another programme, This person did not request a transfer and turned it down, (The correspondence that I received from BOC said “Senior management made a decision that employees cannot transfer between services but can apply for vacancies provided they have the relevant qualifications “,) It is my understanding that this person did not apply for another...