ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00003054

Dispute for Resolution:

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969	CA-00004450-001	13/05/2016

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 22/09/2016 and 28/11/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham

Procedure:

In accordance with section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

The complainant is a Ganger attached to the Roads section. He made a number of complaints against two members of management in 2015 and he alleges they were not properly dealt with and that the Council acted in breach of its own policy and procedures by not acting on this matter within agreed timeframes. Detailed written and oral submissions were made regarding the chronology of events. Inter alia, it is alleged that management acted unprofessionally by discussing his complaints and thereby breaching confidentiality. A number of other allegations were submitted which the complainant stated led him to question management’s attitude towards him, such as not being provided with release for training courses, demotion from Ganger and withholding or not implementing increments.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation

The complainant raised a grievance against Manager X and against another named party Y in March and April 2015. He sought to have the complaint against X dealt with by investigation under the Council’s Dignity at Work Policy. The Council issued a copy of the Dignity at Work Policy to the complainant and the person being complained of and it was advised that, under the policy, a mediator would be appointed to deal with the complaints on an informal basis. By letter of 1^st May 2015 the complainant rejected mediation and indicated that he wished the matter to be dealt with by investigation under the policy. On 25^th May 2015 a letter issued from the Council indicating that an investigator would be appointed and also that the Council would deal with both complaints collectively. In the meantime, the person against whom complaints were made (X) commenced a lengthy period of sick leave and the process was suspended and the union made aware of the position. An investigator was appointed and terms of reference set out in January 2016. In February 2016, SIPTU withdrew the complaints under the Dignity at Work Policy and wished the process to be dealt with under the Grievance Procedure. The Council stood down the investigator appointed and advised that a senior member of management was being appointed to investigate the complaints. Again, the investigation was hampered by the absence on sick leave of the investigator between mid March and mid May 2016. However, when a date of 23^rd May 2016 was offered to the parties, the complainant, through his union refused to attend on the basis that demands for cross-examination of witnesses was refused on the grounds that cross-examination of witnesses is not part of the internal resolution processes. The matter was then referred to the WRC. It is submitted that the respondent has endeavoured to resolve these complaints and that any delays have resulted from unfortunate factors outside its control. It is further rejected that the respondent acted in any way in a deliberately protracted way, and that the internal process has not in fact been completed.

Recommendation:

Due to circumstances beyond the control of the respondent, there was a delay in considering the complainant’s grievances. However, just when the investigation was to commence in May 2016, the matter was referred for adjudication to the Workplace Relations Commission. The complainant contends that he can no longer have trust in the process due to the long delays and lack of the respondent’s agreement to allow cross-examination of witnesses. I note that there is no provision for cross-examination in the respondent’s Grievance Policy and Procedure.

Having examined all the evidence, I find that wherever complaints were made in the past, the respondent investigated them and dealt with them in an expeditious manner. On this occasion, delays occurred which were not deliberate.

In the circumstances where the respondent has done its best to deal with the complaints, I recommend that the investigation process as commenced in May 2016 be allowed to conclude.

Dated: 28^th February 2017