Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Printer

A Newspaper

Representatives

SIPTU

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00017340-001

08/02/2018

The complainant has been employed by the respondent since 2005. There have been inter-personal differences in the workplace the processing of which has given rise to the referral.

The complainant raised a grievance in April 2016 and an investigation took place.

The grievance was only partially upheld, but the complainant was dissatisfied with the manner in which the grievance was handled, including the failure to interview his trade union representative.

The complainant then went on an extended period of sick leave and only recently returned to the workplace.

He seeks a recommendation that his original grievance be upheld.                                

The respondent conducted an investigation into the grievance and while the grievances were not upheld in full the investigator made a number of recommendations.

The complainant was given the right of appeal, but he failed to avail of it within the timeframe that had been set. Since then he has been on an extended period of sick leave

The respondent is committed to finding a resolution to the complainant’s issues.

The incidents which gave rise to the compliant are not far off three years old at this stage.

There is no realistic possibility of re-visiting them at this distance.

I reviewed the investigator’s report and outcome of the investigation. It seemed to be conducted to a good standard and there is no particular reason to believe that correcting flaws alleged by the complainant would have led to a significantly different outcome.

One of the complaints was upheld and the investigator made what appeared to an external eye to be helpful recommendations focussing on eliminating possible flashpoints in the complainant’s work area.

The failure of the complainant to appeal was partly a result if a somewhat unrealistic timeframe set by the respondent which failed to take account of the Christmas holiday period. It ought to have facilitated the complainant with an extension of time, although it is always open to a person to register an intention to appeal without submitting the formal grounds for doing so.

But that too is water that has long since flown under the bridge.

Fortunately, at the hearing both parties positively embraced the idea that the greater priority is how any future difficulties which might arise from what appear to be strained relations between the complainant and some of his co-workers are to be dealt with.

Both the respondent’s HR Manager and the complainant’s union official committed themselves to a process of early intervention without formal resort to the grievance machinery to troubleshoot any emerging difficulty especially over the next few months while the complainant’s return to work beds down.

While modern HR processes are understandably focussed on processing conflict of various types after it emerges, it is also important to invest in conflict avoidance and this represents the best way forward in this case.

Of course, the complainant retains all his rights under the workplace procedures, but the approach just outlined might represent a better chance of resolving the issues to his satisfaction.

I commend the positive approach and good will of the parties at the hearing and recommend that there be an informal monitoring period of about three months along the lines indicated above to address any recurrence of the issues which gave rise to the 2016 complaints and with the direct involvement of the HR Manager and the complainant’s union official.

I recommend that the complainant notify his union official immediately of any potential grievance or other difficulty and this be considered as part of a monthly review with the HR Manager should that be required.

Early intervention, conflict avoidance.