ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00001588

Complaint(s)/Dispute(s) for Resolution:

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 14/06/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s). 

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

In a very detailed Submission which ran to over an estimated 200 pages the Respondent rebutted all of the Complainant’s complaints.

Exhaustive internal investigations had taken place into matters raised by the Complainant and were now at a point of conclusion. The process had commenced in September 2012 and effectively continued until September 2015.

Full details of all Appeals, Correspondence and relevant materials were provided in written evidence.

The Respondent suggested that at this stage the Complainant accept that his grievance has been fully investigated and move on in a productive fashion as an employee of the Respondent.

Decision:

Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and or Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 require that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under both Acts.

Issues for Decision:

Was fair procedure applied to the Complainant and were his grievances as detailed in his submission fully and equitably investigated?

Legislation involved and requirements of legislation:

Industrial Relations Act, 1969

Decision:

Having reviewed the extensive evidence presented by both parties in this case I have come to the view that the Respondent acted fairly and equitably towards the Complainant in a process which took over three years to conclude.

The Respondent organisation has a well documented (and exhibited in evidence) Grievance Procedure in a proper suite of HR Procedures.

The Complainant was at all times well aware of his procedural entitlements at all stages of the Grievance procedures and the Appeals stages. He availed of them all. In addition he had the opportunity of extra meetings with a Director who was seeking to find a solution.

The initial complaint of a reorganisation of Geographical areas in 2012 was largely overtaken by more colourful allegations arising as the process continued. The evidence from the correspondence and the oral evidence clearly showed that the Respondent handled the entire situation with a professional approach and considerable forbearance.

In oral evidence the Complainant stated that, by way of Redress being sought, from the Respondent, he was seeking an Apology, Minutes of Meetings, Compensation for any Financial Losses and a new Investigation from the current CEO of the Respondent. Having studied the extensive evidence from both parties I had to come to the conclusion that this requested new or repeat process would be simply repetitive and not in the best interest of any of the parties.

A grievance process cannot run interminably and the Complainant has to recognise when the process is concluded.

Accordingly I find that the parties and in particular the Complainant should accept the finality of the outcome of the Grievance process and now regard matters as closed.

I cannot see any merit in the Workplace Relations Commission becoming involved in any re- runs of the process.

Dated:   2^nd August 2016