ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00023040

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	A Catering Manager	A University

Representatives

Shonagh Byrne of SIPTU

College HR Department.

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-00029709-001	16/07/2019

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 23/10/2019

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee

Procedure:

In accordance Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following 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).

Note:

There are Two Grievances being Appealed . For convenience I will number them Grievance NO 1 and NO 2.

Background:

The Complainant is appealing against (1) the Outcome of a Grievance finding against her and (2) the Outcome of a Grievance she made against the Respondent Catering Manager concerning a H & S issue.

1: Summary of Complainant’s Case:

Grievance No 1

On Friday the 1st February 2019 an incident arose in the College Restaurant between the Complainant and Mr.XF -the Head Chef regarding a food item. The matter proceeded to a full Grievance investigation by the College. A Formal Grievance had been made by the Head Chef against the Complainant.

The Grievance Outcome was not in favour of the Complainant.

The Outcome was unfair and biased against the Complainant -the investigation was incomplete and not all witnesses were properly interviewed or was it reflected that some of the witnesses interviewed would have had little direct knowledge of the actual incident. The Complainant is Appealing the College Decision to the WRC.

Grievance No 2

This was a Grievance raised by the Complainant against the College Catering Manager. It concerned the alleged shortfalls by the latter in the handling of food allergens & proper food allergy information for customers. It was alleged that the Complainant, an employee of long standing and considerable experience in this allergens area was not being given due recognition for her experience by the Catering Manager. Her attempts to seek improvements in this area were being rebuffed by the Catering Manager and or other senior staff such as the Head Chef.

A Grievance Investigation was carried out by an outside the Department, Senior Manager. It did not find in the Complainant’s favour. The Complainant was appealing this Grievance Outcome to the WRC.

2: Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent University has a long established and extensive Procedural Agreement with SIPTU. The Grievances in this case, No 1 and No 2, were fully investigated, all proper procedures were followed, and the outcome was measured and considered in both cases.

There are no proper procedural or factual grounds on which to base an Appeal to the WRC.

For the WRC to accept these appeals/set aside the Outcomes would be most detrimental to the well-established College Grievance procedures.

In this context it was important to also note that two other Grievances, involving the same parties, were currently (at the date of the Hearing) on going in the Catering Department.

In addition, the Respondent pointed to the fact that they had engaged an Outside Firm of Specialist Catering trainers to run a course on the whole area of Allergens for all Catering staff. This would go a long way to addressing any of the concerns of the Complainant who was a valued and long-standing member of the Restaurant staff.

3: Findings and Conclusions:

3:1 This case was brought under the Industrial Relations Act,1969 which allows an Adjudicator a degree of latitude in his Recommendation as to the appropriate outcome of the case referred.

In this case there was extensive oral evidence by the Parties. The outstanding commitment of all the staff to the College and the Catering Service was immediately obvious. All issues seemed to arise from a desire to keep the Service at the highest level.

It was clear that the Grievances, both in this case and the still ongoing cases, were in many ways symptomatic of an unhelpful personal dynamic between the Complainant and several of her colleagues. The old saying that “It takes a martyr to live with a saint” came to mind.

I felt that this Interpersonal Dynamic question was the real issue behind this case.

3:2 My Recommendations therefore are that

1. The quite well know Catering Training Company, engaged to give the Allergy/Food Ingredients Training, might usefully be asked to run an additional Module on Staff Relationships /Interpersonal Dynamics in a busy Student/Staff Restaurant environment. An experienced outside Facilitator might usefully be engaged to deliver this Module.

2. The obvious knowledge and experience of the Complainant and her senior colleagues, in the Allergens area be drawn upon in the preparation and possibly delivery of the Allergens section of the Training Course.

3. The Grievance Outcomes to stand unaltered but be regarded as “water under the bridge“ at this stage particularly in regard to the suggested interpersonal Module suggested in point one above.

4. In this context the Outside Facilitator suggested above my also wish to discuss, in the context of improving Interpersonal Dynamics between the Parties, the question of the continuation of the other on-going Grievances.

4: Recommendation:

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

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Summary Recommendation
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969	CA-00029709-001	Please refer to Section 3:2 above.

Dated: 9th December 2019

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee