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-00008168-001

14/11/2016

The Complainant referred a dispute to the Workplace   Relations Commission on 14^th November 2016 in relation to a   Grievance she had lodged with the Respondent which she alleged had not been   completed and she wished to have the grievance investigated by an independent   investigator.

The Complainant has worked for the Respondent since 2006.   The Complainant lodged a grievance in December 2015 under the Company   Procedures. She is currently working in the Research Department since July   2011 and prior to this she had worked in the Biomedical Facility. The Complainant   had repeatedly raised concerns directly with her Line Manager in regard to   what she perceived as her underutilisation in the current position.

In December 2015 she lodged a formal grievance against two   named employees of the Respondent. However her complaint was only assigned   for investigation in May 2016 and to date there has been no outcome   communicated to the Complainant resulting in her dispute being referred to   the WRC. The Complainant had allegations made against her in 2011 and a   Recommendation from the LRC recommended a transfer from her then position.   However the transfer was not without its problems and she felt she was been   excluded from meetings after she returned from sick leave following surgery. She had further surgery   and requested assistance from HR and requested to be seen by occupational   health. However she alleged that the Respondent did not act on this report.   The Complainant sought the assistance of SIPTU. She attended a meeting with   the Investigation Officer appointed by the Respondent on 23^rd May   2016. Notes were taken by a named HR employee but she did not sign off on   these notes. Instead she instructed SIPTU to communicate her dissatisfaction   and requested that her booklet of evidence be included. This is where the   investigation stalled. The Complainant has been on medically certified sick   leave for all of 2016. Her contract was due for renewal in July 2016, She   signed the contract under protest pending the outcome of her grievance.

She is seeking that she is fully utilised and provided   with training to support her in her role.

The Complainant is employed as an administrator in a   specified grade with the Respondent. This contract expired in July 2016. She   has been offered alternative work with a new reporting line but she has not   commenced in this new post as she remains on sick leave.

Following correspondence with SIPTU in April 2016 a   complaint lodged by the Complainant under the Dignity and Respect Policy in   December 2015 was withdrawn and replaced by a grievance for investigation by   a named Investigator. The Investigator met with the Complainant on 23^rd   May 2016 and the notes of this were provided. However SIPTU on 5^th   July 2016 disputed the notes of this meeting and stated that the Complainant’s   submission more accurately reflected the Complainant’s grievance.   Clarification was sought from SIPTU in August 2016 on the status of the   dispute as the Complainant had been offered an alternative post in Research   with a different reporting structure and further training, if required. SIPTU   responded to state the Complainant was concentrating on her health. In response to this the Respondent noted   that the Complainant had been deemed fit to meet with Management following   her occupational assessment in November 2015 and this report deems the   Complainant fit to engage with the Respondent. The Complainant was assessed again in   December 2016 and deemed fit to engage with the Respondent. The Union   responded to state the issue had been referred to the WRC.

On the basis of submissions and supporting documents from   both Parties I find as follows:  The Complainant did submit a complaint under the Dignity and Respect Policy   of the Respondent in December 2015. This complaint was withdrawn by SIPTU, on   behalf of the Complainant in an email dated 11^th April 2016.

The Complainant lodged a formal Grievance under the   Respondent’s Grievance Policy and this was submitted to the Respondent by   email from SIPTU dated 21^st April 2016. An Investigator was   appointed and he had a meeting with the Complainant on 23^rd May   2016. Notes of this meeting were provided to both SIPTU and the Complainant.   By email dated 5^th July 2016, SIPTU, on behalf of the Complainant   disputed the notes of this meeting and stated that the submission of the   Complainant should be inserted as a true reflection of her Grievance. There   was no agreement on the notes of this meeting and the Complainant did not propose   any amendments to these notes.

In July 2016 and following a restructuring of the Research   Facility, the Complainant’s Contract of Employment has expired and she was   offered a new (named) position reporting to a different Line Manager and   training to be provided if required. The Complainant signed this Contract on   20^th July 2016, under protest. The Complainant has not been in a   position to take up this position as she has been and remains on sick leave   since 2016.

In August 2016, the Respondent sought clarification if the   Complainant would attend a further meeting with the Investigator. SIPTU   responded on behalf of the Complainant by email dated 5^th   September 2016 in which the UNION stated having consulted the Complainant   that she was not in a position to make decisions on her future as she was   concentrating on her health.

In September 2016 the Respondent replied that following an   occupational health review in November 2015 the Complainant was deemed fit to   engage with management with a view to resolving the issues. SIPTU deemed this   report to be out of date and following a further occupational health   assessment in December 2016 the Complainant was again deemed fit to engage   with Management.

On 14^th November 2016 a dispute was referred to   the Workplace Relations Commission.

On the basis of the evidence and my findings above I find   that the Grievance Procedure in relation to the complaint of April 2016 has   not been completed as the Complainant, through SIPTU, has confirmed that she   is unable to make any decisions about her future as she is concentrating on   her health and she remains on sick leave.

I recommend that if and when the Complainant believes she   is able to engage further with the Respondent in relation to both her   Grievance and the offer of alternative employment as set out in the Contract   of July 2016, that she or her Trade Union, SIPTU, contact the Respondent.

I note that in the Complainant’s submission to the   Hearing, the Complainant is seeking a new start, where she will be fully   utilised and provided with training to support her in this role. The   Complainant has been offered a new position/role and she has been informed   that she will be provided with training if she requires it.