Poorly handled complaint leads to award of €45,000

Background

In this case, the organisation involved (the Respondent) is in the business of providing advice on health and safety matters. The claimant was a training and development executive who claims to have been constructively dismissed.

The organisation was experiencing internal rivalries and difficulties with changes in senior management and an ongoing Labour Relations Commission (LRC) investigation. A former CEO, who remained in the organisation’s employment, sent an email to several members of the executive committee and number of past presidents in which he made an allegation that the claimant had bullied a, by then, former employee for a period of months.  An article subsequently appeared in the Sunday Tribute headlined ‘Bullying claim made against anti-bullying advice body’. Although not named, the complainant felt it referred to her as the bully. Subsequently, she saw the email and wrote a letter to the CEO outlining her shock and distress and asking for the matter to be investigated.

The former CEO was then reprimanded for circulating the email but not for its content (as it was being dealt with elsewhere). The claimant interpreted that the reprimand concerned circulating an email, irrespective of its contents, and the possibility of serious consequences for him and his future in the organisation. The Tribunal disagreed with this interpretation and found it clear that he was being warned about the content of the email. The claimant did not know about this reprimand until after her resignation.

Due to the stress of the situation, the claimant began to seek medical attention. As a result of his reinstatement and so not to work in same building, the claimant began to work from other premises without her employer’s approval (who had suggested she take stress leave). Through her solicitor, the claimant requested the appointment of an independent investigator.

The claimant asked if the remit of the LRC investigation extended to include her complaint and it was confirmed that it was an ‘integral part’ of the investigation. The claimant advised if she did not receive an apology and if her complaint was not treated seriously, she would be forced to resign. A commitment was given to review the recent correspondence with directors, however, deadlines were extended and still no response. The claimant resigned.

Subsequently, an independent investigator was appointed and found that he was constrained in the investigation because of the reprimand given to the author of the email which alleged the claimant was a bully and that the matter had been dealt with.

Finding of the Tribunal

The Tribunal stated that it is not up to an employee to demand that a grievance is investigated in any particular way. However, the employer ‘must conduct an investigation that is fair and thorough’.

The respondent said it would carry out an investigation and then conducted no investigation at all. Although not through any ill will, it was found that this was simply a case where a complaint was poorly handled.

The Tribunal found that although the organisation was in ‘a time of turmoil’, it was not absolved from responsibilities towards employees.

In these circumstances, it found that the resignation amounted to dismissal and awarded €45,000 in compensation as an appropriate remedy.

FirstCall HR Views

This was an interesting case with some key points to note:

• Regardless of internal difficulties and challenges, and the voluntary nature of the roles in the organisation, the law is the law and the same standards apply to all situations equally.
• This case demonstrates that failure to investigate a formal complaint amounts to a basis for constructive dismissal – most notably as a breach of contract which renders the complainant’s position untenable. Her attempts to resolve matters internally before tendering her resignation meant she was found to have done everything in her power to resolve matters.
• The case is a reminder of the impact on the person who is alleged to have bullied. This was an extreme case as allegations were published in a national paper. However, the claimant was stressed and required sick leave, and it affected her reputation. In this case, the alleged victim no longer works in the organisation, but there was a tendency to focus on only that person. It’s necessary to consider the needs of both parties during an investigation. After all, the purpose of an investigation is to explore the situation and discover if bullying has taken place, before condemning an individual.
• Another interesting point is the use of email. Never underestimate the power of words put in email. Many people think it is a less formal channel than a written letter however, an email is still ‘written word’ and can be used as a record and evidence.
• In these types of cases, the most likely remedy will tend to be compensation as employment relationships tend to be irretrievably broken down after this type of case. Recent cases have revealed a propensity to award larger sums of money.