An engineering company has been ordered to pay €1,500 to a worker who claimed he was subjected to "demeaning and abusive behaviour" – including being asked "if he was stupid" – which he believed was designed to get him to leave the firm.
The Workplace Relations Commission ruled that the unnamed tool and engineering company should compensate the operative owing to the "distress" he experienced because of the lack of clarity on how conflict could be dealt with.
The man told the Workplace Relations Commission that the demeaning and abusive behaviour went on for over a year between May 2020 and June 2021 and took the form of "excessive scrutiny" by the employer, intimidation and asking him if he was stupid. He said he believed this behaviour was designed to get him to leave the company.
The worker began his employment as an operative in the respondent's retail and service provider company in October 2018 and resigned from his position in June 2021.
His employer denied ever having told the operative he was stupid, intimidating him or asking him repeatedly what he was doing.
The engineering firm submitted that the man had failed to invoke the grievance procedure or anti-bullying procedure against the company, a step which is a precondition for a referral to the WRC.
The worker sought adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer, Maire Mulcahy, noted the worker had not exhausted all the internal workplace procedures before submitting his complaint to the WRC.
However, she said the man had stated that he was unaware of what procedures he could have used in an attempt to remedy the situation.
She said the employer had asserted that they [the relevant procedures] were posted on a staff notice board.
Ms Mulcahy said the operative made no complaints to the employer until June 2021 when he was called a thief and submitted his resignation.
She said at that point, if not beforehand, as employees should be provided with such procedures as of right and not just because a crisis arises, he should have been provided with a copy of the procedure which could have examined his complaint.
She went on to state that the worker’s unfamiliarity with a procedure which was not provided to him in taking up his employment and was under disclosed during the period June 2020 and June 21 acted "to inhibit" the employee from making a complaint.
Ms Mulcahy said in view of all of the circumstances, and given that the complaint had been taken under the Industrial Relations Act, she recommend that the employer pay the sum of €1,500 to the worker owing to the "distress" experienced by the operative in the workplace as a result of the lack of clarity offered as to how conflicts could be addressed.
