Case Number: ADJ-00010340. Workplace Relations Commission

• Docket Number: ADJ-00010340
• Hearing Date: 19 June 2018
• Date: 01 August 2018
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission
• Parties: A worker v A medical device manufacturer.

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00010340

Complaint(s):

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977	CA-00013553-001	03/09/2017

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 19/06/2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David Mullis

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015,following 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.

Background:

In this case the Complainant claims that he was, from 2012 onwards, treated in such a way by his line, senior managers and fellow employees, that it had an adverse effect on his health and mental health in particular, that it caused him to resign from his position and leave the company. He is claiming constructive dismissal under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977. The Respondent does not accept the validity of the claim. They say that there were performance issues which they sought to address and that these claims were raised in 2016 arising from issues the claimant said occurred in 2012/2013. They say the Complainant was absent from work from 10/06/2013 until he resigned on the 28th September 2016. They say that despite their best efforts to encourage him to remain at work that he resigned on this latter date.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant worked at the Respondent company from the 20th May 2004. He says that in September 2012 anxiety and deep depression overcame him, resulting in him feeling no self worth – not being a good husband, father, son, friend or employee. He says that this anxiety had a huge impact on his wellbeing, behaviour and his ability to function with normal day-to-day tasks. He felt that this gave management and staff within the Respondent company, licence to bully and intimidate him and make him feel that he was to blame for such behaviour towards him. He says that this made him physically ill and afraid to go to work. He gives examples of this as: “The reporting of lack of safe practice which led to fear of retaliation. Reporting intimidation and hostile behaviour as it may lead to some sort of retaliatory response. Negative comments from management and co-workers Being shouted at in private and in public. Overmonitoring or constant criticism of his work. Intentional holding back of information and tools he required to perform my work effectively. His toolbox and locker being broken into while he was on holidays in September 2013. Intentionally excluding him from normal workplace conversations made him feel unwelcome at the company. Observed by his car and told to return to work. He was advised that he had been reported by an unnamed person. He says the charge was untrue and made up to intimidate him”. On the 17th October 2016 he was given a final written warning for gross misconduct, though, he says, that no procedures were followed. He says that when he questioned this his supervisor reacted in a loud voice and banged the table with his fist. He says that on the 18th October2013 he submitted written complaints to a senior manager about his issues, was listened to but that ultimately he found that his complaints were not satisfactorily dealt with. As a result he says he found the process unsatisfactory and unacceptable. He says that on the 20th October 2013 that the Managing Director in addressing the workforce referred to cups “disappearing from the canteen” and that he made a remark which the Complainant felt was a reference to him and because of which some employees ridiculed him subsequently. He says he found this offensive, though no name was mentioned. He says that he was advised that he was, on occasion, just walking around the factory and that his level of productivity was below that being achieved by all, bar one other employee. He says that he felt that this complaint by management was used to put pressure on him given that he was already in receipt of a final written warning. He felt that another warning, for anything, would mean the end of his employment with the company. On the 20th June 2013 he says that he was advised by his supervisor that his level of rework was being noted. Another supervisor also advised him of the high level of rework required on the Complainant’s work . He says he felt that these complaints were in retaliation for his raising the health and safety issues of insufficient extraction and lighting in the area he worked in. He says that this was all part of a campaign to make him feel uncomfortable in the hope he would resign his position. On the 9th September 2013 he says, he was handed an invitation to a disciplinary meeting which was to take place on the following day, the 10th September 2013. He says the letter included photographs of reworked parts and included an allegation of neglectful production. He felt, that given that he was already on a final written warning, that this could mean the end of his employment with the company. He says that he felt ill and was encouraged to go to his doctor. He did so and was signed off from work by his doctor. He says he never returned to work at the respondent company. He says he was invited to a meeting by the Respondent, by letter of the 6th September 2016. This was described as an update meeting to discuss his ability to return to work in the near term. The meeting was scheduled for 14th September 2016. The Complainant was accompanied by his father. The Complainant says he raised his concerns about being targeted by the Respondent and submitted his complaints by email on the 9th October 2016. The Human Resources manager at that time resigned her position at that time, due to ill health and was replaced by the current HR manager. Che advised the Complainant of this change and said she would respond to him, but that thyere was a delay due to the change of manager. The HR manager conducted an investigation into the complainant’s grievances and issued her report. The Complainant says he found the outcome unsatisfactory and requested an appeal using an external investigator. An external investigator was sourced and agreed between the Complainant and Respondent. The terms of reference were also agreed between the parties. The Complainants complaints were not upheld by this investigation. The conversations then switched to the possible return to work of the complainant and involved the Complainant’s doctor and the Respondent’s Occupational health specialist. Both recommended the Complainant’s return to work, on a planned and phased basis. The complainant, following completion of this process, was due to return to work on the 17th July 2017, but he did not return. He sought other accommodations, including work in a different role. This was discussed but ultimately the Complainant did not favour any of the solutions offered. He requested an agreement on severance and sought 4-times salary. The company could not accede to this as they said that his position was open to him and no redundancy occurred. The Complainant resigned from the company,...