ADJ-00000387

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00000387

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

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 14/03/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gerry Rooney

2. Procedure:

2.1. This case involves a complaint made by a Paramedic (the claimant) regarding the alleged handling by his employer (the respondent) of his appeal to the findings of a grievance.

2.2. 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 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.

4. Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

4.1. The claimant contended that his appeal to the outcome of a grievance he raised, and heard at stage 3 of respondent’s internal grievance procedures, was not handled correctly by the respondent.

4.2. The claimant contended that he raised some seven complaints in 2013. He maintained that, following a dispute with the respondent regarding how the grievances were to be dealt with, the matter was reviewed by a Rights Commissioner on 28th May 2014. The Rights Commissioner recommended the matters for consideration within the grievance should be decided by an external reviewer. The external reviewer issued her findings on 5th March 2015 and recommended how matters could be handled. In summary the external reviewer recommended, without prejudice to any of the parties involved, that 4 out of 7 of the claimant’s complaints merited consideration under the respondent’s grievance procedure should the claimant choose to pursue that avenue.

4.3. Following this recommendation the claimant progressed with his grievance on 9th March 2015. However he contended that he experienced further objections from the respondent who disputed which matters would be entertained through the grievance procedure, and where the claimant experienced delays in the handling of the grievance. The claimant submitted a complaint to the Rights Commissioner Service on 24th July 2015 regarding the delays he was encountering in trying to have his complaint dealt with.

4.4. In the meantime the respondent progressed with a hearing of the complaint and issued its findings on 24th September 2015.

4.5. The claimant was unhappy with the grievance findings and appealed them. An appeal was subsequently heard on 19th October 2015, a day before the Rights Commissioner hearing into the alleged delays. The appeal findings were issued on 29th October 2015.

4.6. The claimant contended that the appeal did not address his concerns regarding the conduct of the grievance procedures, and that the appeal findings wrongly relied upon and /or interpreted some of the external reviewer’s recommendations. He therefore argued that the internal grievance and appeal hearings were procedurally flawed and had erred on some of the substantive issues of his complaint.

4.7. In order to remedy this situation the claimant is seeking for his appeal to be properly dealt with. He is also seeking compensation for the stress and suffering he maintained he experienced due to the lengthy process he has been involved in.

5. Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

5.1. The respondent argued that it dealt with the claimant’s grievance in a proper manner. The respondent outlined that the claimant has been on sick leave for over two years and that it has always dealt with his complaints in accordance with its grievance procedures.

5.2. The respondent advised that the complainant raised an initial complaint in August 2013 which it screened under its bullying policy and that the claimant was unhappy with this decision and referred the matter to the Rights Commissioner service. The Rights Commissioners hearing took place in May 2014 and published its recommendation in October 2014 where it was recommended a third party should review the matters to decide what should be investigated, and under which policy.

5.3. In in March 2015 the third-party issued a report recommending what matters should be addressed in the grievance hearing.

5.4. The respondent commenced that hearing in August 2014. It acknowledged some delays were encountered due to changes that were taking place in the area, and it also acknowledged that the claimant had raised a further concern to the Rights Commissioner service on 24th July 2015 regarding delays in progressing with matters.

5.5. The respondent maintained that it completed stage 1 of the grievance hearing, which was held at a local level, and issued its report on 25th September 2015. The claimant then appealed the internal review and the respondent appointed another manager to hear that appeal at stage 3 of its grievance procedures. The respondent advised that it decided to progress to stage 3, where the matter is dealt with by the human resources department, in order to progress matters in a timely manner as stage 2 requires further involvement of local management. The appeal hearing commenced on 19th October 2015 and issued its findings on 29th October 2015.

5.6. The respondent contended that at the stage hearing the complainant was given the opportunity to outline and provide any supplementary information to support each of his complaints. The respondent contended that its stage 3 appeal hearing gave due consideration to the grievance and adequately addressed each issue raised by the complainant, highlighting that its review went beyond the four areas recommended by the third party and in fact considered all seven of the claimants grievance. The respondent therefore denied that it failed to adequately address the complaints grievance.

5.7. In response to the complaint of delays in the procedure the respondent referred to the Rights Commissioner hearing of 20th October 2015. The respondent contended that the Rights Commissioner had made a recommendation in relation to the time taken for matters to be dealt with and therefore it was outside the scope of the current adjudication hearing to reconsider this matter.

6. Decision:

6.1. Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complain in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act. In this regard the complaint is raised under the Industrial Relations Act 1969, and in accordance with Section 13 of that Act I am entitled to investigate the matter and make a recommendation to the parties setting forth my opinion on the merits of the dispute. In this regard I must decide whether the respondents handling of the complaint was unreasonable as alleged by the claimant, and whether there were unreasonable delays encountered by the claimant.

6.2. With regard to the handling of the grievance and appeal:

6.2.1. The respondent initially dealt with the complaint at level 1 of its grievance procedure. Stage 1 requires for matters to be considered at a meeting with the complainant and where a decision will be conveyed in writing to the employee involved. I am satisfied that the respondent adhered to the stage 1 procedures, albeit not within the timescales outlined it its procedures. In addition, based on the grievance report submitted to the hearing, the respondent considered all seven matters raised by the claimant and did not confine its review to the four areas identified by the external reviewer. It appears from the report that it was the claimant who raised all seven issues at the grievance meeting. The stage 1 grievance report summarises each of the complaints and provides the basis for its findings on all seven issues reviewed.

6.2.2. The respondent handled the appeal in a timely manner from 19th October to 29th October 2015. It also adhered to the procedures as laid down in stage 3 of its policy, where it met with the claimant to hear his appeal, and conveyed its decision in writing to the claimant where the appeal officer has provided a rational for her decisions. I am therefore satisfied that the claimant was provided with procedures that are consistent with the organisation’s grievance policy. Whilst the Adjudication is cautions of interfering with the substantive decisions made regarding the grievance and the appeal, the following matters are noted:

a. regarding complaints 1 and 2, the appeal report justifies its decisions of these complaints and in particular deemed complaint 1 as being closed due to management facilitating the claimant. The report also provides its rationale regarding its findings in relation to complaint 2 and the basis why it considers there has not been a breach of confidentiality as alleged;

b. with regard to complaint 3 the appeal report acknowledged the handling of the claimant’s sick pay was incorrect and that this matter has been restored;

c. in relation to complaint 4 the appeal report accounts for its decision on this matter. It does not rely on the external reviewers comments to form its opinion of this issue as alleged by the claimant;

d. as mediation is a confidential process the appeal report quite correctly deferred from making comments in relation complaints 5 and 6 which referred to the mediation process;

e. the appeal report addresses the reasons for its decision in relation to complaint 7.

6.2.3. With regard to the timeframe for handling the grievance, the Rights Commissioner has already made a decision on this matter particularly in relation to the handling of the issues up to the appeal that was lodged in October 2015. In this regard the Rights Commissioner has decided at a hearing on 20th October 2015 that “I accept that there was a non-intentional inadvertent delay in processing the claimant grievance”. I therefore cannot reconsider how matters were handed prior to the appeal hearing. Having reviewed the handling of the appeal I find that there were no undue delays and the report was issued 10 days after the appeal hearing which I find is reasonable under the circumstances.

6.3. Having considered all the issues set before me I do not find that the claimant was treated unfairly in the handling of his complaint and appeal. With the exception of the time taken to hear stage one of the grievance, which has already been decided upon by the Rights Commissioner, I find the respondent has reasonably considered all the matters raised by the claimant, conveyed its decisions in writing to the claimant, and has adhered to the requirements laid out in is grievance procedures.

6.4. It is recommended that the claimant now accept the outcome of the appeal process and that the claimant and respondent agree a return to work process.

Dated: 9th May 2016