Case Number: ADJ-00008230. Workplace Relations Commission

• Judgment Date: 01 December 2017
• Year: 2017
• Docket Number: ADJ-00008230
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission
• Parties: A Supervisor (2) V A Contract Cleaning Company

ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00008230 Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	A Supervisor (2)	A Contract Cleaning Company

Complaint:

Act	Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969	CA-00010731-001	10/04/2017

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 29/09/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 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 evidence relevant to the dispute.

Background:

The complainant made a complaint at workplace level against two managers of bullying and he says he was the subject of retaliation for making them. He has been employed by the respondent since 2006 and is now a Supervisor earning €585.34 per week

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The complainant alleges that he was the victim of bullying which was not properly investigated. (He has made a separate complaint that he was penalised for doing so, which is the subject of a separate WRC decision). He seeks a finding that the complaints were well founded and that the procedures used by the respondent to investigate the complaint were flawed and that the outcome should have ‘no standing’. In relation to the substantive grievance the complainant believed that he had been the subject of bullying behaviour on five occasions, involving both managers. One incident involved the managers telling him that he would have to ‘deliver more’ but that this was done in an ‘aggressive tone’ and in a ‘condescending’ manner. At other meetings (five in total) he complains of having been interrupted and being prevented from speaking, of voices being raised and his name being repeated at volume in a threatening way. Regarding the investigation, the specific complaints are that the investigator did not conduct a fair, thorough or impartial investigation; specifically, she applied unjustifiable time frames, did not record all respondent interviews, conducted interviews in the wrong order, denied the complainant the right to comment on some statements, did not probe interviewees sufficiently and did not base her conclusions on the evidence. Also, the complainant’s request for an external investigation was rejected. He also complains that the appeal did not properly review the evidence and merely re-stated the investigator’s conclusions. The substantive matter concerned the fact that the complainant’s hours had been reduced after he made his complaint and that he was asked to attend an investigation meeting about his punctuality and allegedly ‘fraudulent timesheets submitted by him’.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

There is a relevant background to the case in that the respondent was experiencing trading difficulties in the complainant’s region which necessitated some staff re-deployment. This was done and transport was arranged by the company to the new location. These arrangements were agreed with the union representing the workers involved, although it is accepted that the arrangement was not popular with the employees involved. The ‘travelling time’ was at the company’s expense. It appeared to the company that, of all those involved, the complainant had the greatest difficulty with the new arrangement, even though it was guaranteeing him full-time work in difficult circumstances for the company. He lodged a grievance on August 21st 2016 against two of his senior managers and at the first meeting with the investigator on September 19th he changed this to an allegation that he was being bullied by them. The investigator decided to proceed on this basis. She interviewed several witnesses and issued her report on November 9th to a member of the Senior Management team. The complainant was sent a copy and invited to comment. The recipient concluded that while some of the behaviour raised by the complainant had taken place and that there were communication issues he not been subject to bullying and harassment, and noting the frustrations arising from the travelling recommended mediation. The complainant was offered an appeal and he exercised his right to do so. The appeal was not upheld but the decision maker again noted the issues surrounding the complaint and offered mediation. The respondent responds to complaints about the procedure by saying that it followed its internal procedures. There was no obligation on it to appoint an external investigator. Issues raised about how questions were asked by the first investigator formed part of the appeal and those issues raised were fully examined and detailed responses were provided in their appeal findings. There was no interaction between the initial investigator and the appeal decision maker.

Findings and Conclusions:

There are two issues for decision (and a third in a separate referral) The first concerns whether the complaint of bullying is well founded. The second concerns the conduct of the investigation. A...