ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00012027
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Caretaker / groundsman | Country Estate |
Representatives | Self | Michelle Dolan Groarke & Partners |
Complaint(s):
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-00015950-001 | 22/11/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 23/08/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marguerite Buckley
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following 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.
Background:
This referral is that on the 19th of October 2017 a fellow employee assaulted and injured the Claimant at his place of work. He was pushed to the ground and suffered a cut elbow and a shoulder injury.
The Claimant made a statement to the local Garda station. He went to see his doctor. He was certified unfit for work for one week.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Claimant’s position is that he made a formal complaint by text message to his employer on the 19th of October 2017 and that constituted his formal complaint.
His referral was lodged with the WRC on the 22nd of November 2017.
In March 2018 the Claimant was advised that his hours of work were being reduced to a three-day week. He felt harassed, victimised and penalised for making the complaint about his co-worker regarding what took place on the 19th of October 2017.
He went on sick leave from March 2018 until the 25th of June 2018.
The Complainant stated that it would have been a complete waste of time contacting his employers.
His claim is for compensation for bullying and harassment, mental stress, injury and failure to provide a safe system of work.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Claimant was asked by the Respondent to make either a formal or informal complaint against his co-worker and to set out if he wished for the matter to be investigated.
The Claimant did not make a complaint internally but made one directly with the Gardaí and the WRC.
The Respondent cannot progress an investigation without a complaint.
|
Findings and Conclusions:
I have no jurisdiction to make any finding in relation to a personal injury claim. That is within the remit of The Personal Injuries Assessment Board (PIAB).
I recommend the Claimant accept the Respondent’s proposal in relation to investigating the incident of the 19th of October 2017. The Claimant must engage with the internal process available to him and allow same to reach a conclusion. I am conscious that this dispute could roll on and on without any conclusion (satisfactory to him or otherwise).
The Complainant shall have two weeks to choose one name from the list of external investigators provided by the Respondent. Failing same, the steps outlined at one and two below will be at an end:
The most important aspect of this recommendation is that the Complainant and Respondent work though the process that is in the workplace as the jurisdiction of the WRC cannot be called upon to make a recommendation on a process that hasn’t been concluded internally.
The Respondent must equally become more proactive with the process.
I note the Complainant is concerned about the reduction in his working hours. This dispute post-dated his claim being lodged with the WRC and is not before me for a recommendation.
|
Decision:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
My recommendation is that both sides progress this dispute internally to bring it to a conclusion. |
Dated: 5th December 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marguerite Buckley
Key Words:
Assault, injury, compensation |