ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00008029

Parties:

Complaint(s):

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 05/09/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).

1:        Summary of Complainant’s Case:

Complaint No 1

The Complainant alleged that her hours of work had been reduced in the closing weeks of 2016 and early 2017. She had raised these issues with her immediate Superior but received no adequate response. All efforts to seek a resolution had failed. In addition the manner that the Hospital had treated her both personally and in terms of her legitimate case had been a clear case of Bullying and Harassment.

Complaint No 2

The Respondent employer had, by means of systematically reducing the Complainant’s hours, sought to orchestrate her resignation.

2:        Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent was first made aware verbally of the Complainant’s complaint on the 8^th February 2017. The issue was not resolved at Supervisor level and the Hospital indicated on the 22^nd February 2017 that they were referring the issue to the Hospital’s Internal Grievance Procedures. The Complainant was advised of the appropriate Trade Union contacts.

The Complainant did not utilise the Trade Union but sought to engage the services of her father to represent her. This was not within the terms of the Grievance procedures. Accordingly the Grievance process did not proceed and the claim was referred to the WRC.

In relation to the claimed pattern of Reduction in Hours the Respondent provided detailed statistics to support the case that there was nothing out of the ordinary in any hours issues with the Complainant. The issues had been the subject of ongoing discussions with SIPTU, the Trade Union involved for the Catering staff. The Complainant was one of a number of catering staff being dealt with collectively, in keeping with good Industrial Relations procedures. The Complainant should have availed of accepted procedures to resolve her complaints.

In relation to a claim of Bullying and Harassment there is absolutely no required prima facie evidence being advanced. The Hospital has well developed procedures in this area. None of these Procedures were utilised. This element of the claim is completely without foundation.

Complaint No 2

The Complainant is still employed by the Respondent and the claim is completely without any evidential base.

3:        Findings and Conclusions:

3:1      Complaint No 1

This is a complaint /dispute under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 –accordingly an Industrial Relations recommendation is required.

The Respondent Hospital is a large employer with well-established Industrial Relations machinery.

There are approximately 20 staff in the Complainant’s immediate work group. The question of Rosters/Hours is by definition a collective issue and is/was being handled by SIPTU. The Complainant may not wish to be a member of SIPTU. None the less she has to recognise the collective situation and utilise normal Industrial Relations procedures to change it.

Utilising a family member, in this case, her father, as an advocate is not within the procedures.

The Respondent procedures and indeed SI 146 of 2000 – Industrial Relations Act , 1990 (Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures ) reflects this common practice as regards Representation in employments that have collective Union/Management procedures already agreed.

However, to be fair to the Complainant a number of recent Superior Court decisions have raised question marks in this area. These have been in the main issues involving the participation rights of Solicitors or other Qualified Lawyers in the procedures. The question of the involvement of external (to the employment) parties has generally always been in the context of most egregious employment situations. This case does not fall into this category.

Accordingly, having heard and considered all the evidence, I recommend that the Parties seek to re-engage under the terms of the Respondent Grievance Procedures and bearing in mind any collective resolution the overall catering group may have arrived at with SIPTU.

In relation to the issue of Bullying and Harassment I could, find no prima facie evidence, as is required by the respective legislation. This element of the claim is dismissed.

3:2      Complaint No 2

Having considered all the evidence I could not find any evidence to substantiate this allegation. The Complainant is still an employee and the Respondent has not demonstrated any desire to change this situation.

4:        Recommendation:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

Dated:   6^th Oct 2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee

Key Words: