FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Grievance Procedure.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a Worker's claim that the Employer failed to investigate his grievance in an appropriate manner. On the 9th June, 2016 the Worker referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd August, 2016. The Worker agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1. Following an incident with a work colleague, the Worker lodged a complaint claiming a breach of Section 6 of the DCC Guidance and Procedure for the Management of Violence and Aggression in the Workplace. Management originally informed him they would not be investigating it.
2. Management refused to allow the Union access to the CCTV footage of the incident.
3. The appeal of the decision was rejected without affording the Worker a personal hearing, which makes the validity of the findings questionable.
4. The Employer refused to hear a further appeal.
5. The Employer was in breach of natural justice and acted unfairly. The Employer did not give proper consideration to the circumstances.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1. In his time with the Council, the Worker has submitted 20 grievances/complaints on a variety of issues.
2. The grievance procedure is seen as a 'last resort' by the Council, to be used when issues cannot be resolved informally. The Worker uses the procedure as a 'first port of call' and in the Council's opinion this is an abuse.
3. The incident had been fully investigated by local management.
4. The Worker has abused the operation of the Grievance Policy. Any grievances or appeals from the Worker will not be accepted.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court was brought under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (the Act) and concerns a complaint by a worker that his employer, Dublin City Council, has treated him unfairly in failing to afford him natural justice when he submitted a grievance concerning the behaviour of a work colleague which he alleged was inappropriate and occurred on 1stOctober 2015.
In submitting his claim the Claimant has in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Act undertaken to accept the Recommendation of the Court.
The Claimant has been employed by Dublin City Council as a General Operative since 2007 and is currently assigned to the Waste Management Service. The Union on behalf of the Claimant contended that by initially refusing to investigate the matter; by failing to allow him access to CCTV footage of the alleged incident; and by refusing to conduct a personal hearing at the appeal stage, he was denied natural justice to have his complaint dealt with in an open and fair manner.
In their defence, the Council stated that the Claimant has submitted a very large number of grievances over the years, which it held was an abuse of its procedures. The Council said that the Claimant was using the Grievance Procedures as the “first port of call” instead of as the “last port of call” whenever he perceives that he has been slighted or upset. It contended that the grievance which is the subject matter of this case had been thoroughly and completely dealt with and that nothing further could be achieved by a further appeal hearing.
The Council stated that the actions of the Claimant have frustrated the provision of the Waste Management Service by tying up Supervisors, Inspectors and other local management in attempting to deal with his continuous stream of complaints. At this point the HR Department has decided that it will no longer accept grievances or appeals from the Claimant and is considering issuing an instruction to the Waste Management Service to likewise not accept any further grievances from the Claimant.
The Court has given careful consideration to both the oral and written submissions of both parties and notes that in the Council’s view it is rare for an employee to lodge more than one grievance during the course of their employment. In such circumstances and due to the disruption caused to management by the multiple grievances raised by the Claimant, the Court is of the view that Management and the Union should agree an internal person to be nominated as an assessor to determine whether or not the Claimant’s grievances should be processed through the Grievance Procedure. The Court recommends that the Claimant’s grievance before the Court, along with the other grievances he has raised since, and any future grievances that may arise, should be dealt with in the first instance by the Assessor appointed.
The Court recommends that the appointment process should be completed within four weeks of the date of this Recommendation, otherwise at the request of both the Union and Management the Court will appoint an external person, paid by the Council, to act as the Assessor.
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
7th October 2016______________________
JKDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jason Kennedy, Court Secretary.