ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00000683

Complaint for Resolution:

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 05/09/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and under 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.

Attendance at Hearing:

Background

The Complainant has been employed as a Duty Officer and then a Residential Care Worker since 1997. As a result of an independent investigation a number of grievances were upheld and no action by the employer to address the issues has taken place. She is seeking compensation.

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

The investigator found that the Complainant “has legitimate grievances to be addressed”. Her complaints date back to 2004. She believes that because of her complaints her career progression has been negatively affected, she was denied acting up posts and there were times when she did not even apply for promotions as her confidence was shattered. Since the investigator has upheld a number of her grievances she believes that she is entitled to educational support and compensation. The investigator also found that there were delays in processing her grievances, which was recognised by the Board that it caused unnecessary stress. The Respondent was prepared to support her in further educational development but would not consider financial compensation.

She has sought €20,000 in financial compensation.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

The Respondent has actively and consistently attempted to address concerns raised by the Complainant including engaging expert external expertise with a view to netting down the Complainant’s core issues and taking steps to resolve them.

The report of the external investigator did identify a number of grievances; some were against named individuals who had left the employment thus making it difficult to address. The report went on to recommend that outstanding issues should be the subject of joint meetings with management. These have taken place and appropriate measures have been taken to address them as fully as possible. Management have agreed to fund a relevant educational course to 100% level despite the norm being 80 %. There was a moratorium on recruitment which impacted on access to promotional opportunities however where they did exist the Complainant did not apply.

Some of these complaints originated back some twelve years ago. Every effort was made to address them as they arose it is accepted that some delays occurred in responding comprehensively.

The Respondent does not believe that compensation is an effective way to deal with this matter.

Findings

I note that some of these grievances date back to 2004.

I note that it is acknowledged by the Respondent that despite their best efforts to address these grievances there were delays caused by a turnover of personnel, changes in the statutory Board of Management and disruption during construction and transfer to new buildings.

I note that following the report of the external investigator the Respondent has addressed the Complainant’s concerns.

I note that the only outstanding matter that requires adjudication is whether compensation is warranted.

I find that it is established that the Complainant had genuine grievances that were not properly addressed at the appropriate time.

I find that the delay in addressing the Complainant’s grievances was unacceptable.

I note that the Labour Court has addressed this matter in its deliberations over the years and awarded compensation for delays on due process.

In LCR21263 the Court stated “the Court recommends that due to the delay incurred in the investigation process that an additional (amount) should be paid ..”

Therefore I must concur with that and I have decided that a level of compensation is warranted.

I should state that it is clear that the current management team have addressed the Complainant’s grievances and this should be recognised.

It should also be recognised that the Respondent granted 100 % funding in this case.

Recommendation:

Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

I recommend that the Respondent pays €4,000 in compensation for the undue delays in processing the Complainant’s grievances.

I recommend that the Complainant accepts this in full and final settlement of her complaint.

This is to be paid within six weeks of the date below.

Eugene Hanly

Adjudication Officer                                                                                                              

Dated:   15^th November 2016