FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : OUR LADY'S HOSPICE AND CARE SERVICES (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Geraghty Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms Treacy |
1. Failure To Address Complaint
BACKGROUND:
2. The Employer is a health care facility and the Worker was employed as a Catering Assistant. In December 2017, the Worker and a Duty Manager lodged a grievance/complaint against each other following an exchange between them earlier that day. The Worker was subsequently advised by the Employer that an investigation into the matter was being put on hold pending the outcome of a disciplinary investigation into a separate incident involving the Worker that had occurred in September 2017. In May 2018 another complaint was made against the Worker resulting in a disciplinary sanction. The appeal of that sanction was similarly put on hold by the Employer. In June 2018, SIPTU sought a response from the Employer to the Worker’s grievances and stated that his grievance/appeal had not been dealt with. The Employer advised in July 2018 that the Worker’s matters would not be investigated and dealt with until the disciplinary investigation into the September 2017 incident, which preceded the Workers complaints was completed. The Worker referred the matter to the Workplace Relations Commission, (WRC). The Employer declined to participate in an investigation by the WRC. The Worker referred the matter to the Labour Court under s.20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969.
3.WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
1.The Employer failed to address the Worker’s grievances contrary to their own procedures.
2.There were previous examples of delay in addressing the Worker’s grievances. There was no such delay in addressing complaints against the Worker.
3.Case law was provided to the Court to support a claim for compensation for the Employer's inaction in addressing the Worker's concerns. The Worker seeks that the Employer would also engage with him to address his grievances, that an independent Investigator be appointed, that the Investigator also investigate a written warning or that this be removed from the Worker's file and set aside.
4. EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
1. It was reasonable for the Employer to postpone an investigation pending the outcome of a separate disciplinary process.
2. The Employer did not refuse to hear the Worker’s grievance.
3. The counter complaint against the Worker, made on the same day, was also postponed pending the outcome of a separate process.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court was made aware that the Claimant had been dismissed and that an internal appeal process in relation to the dismissal had yet to conclude.
The Court is concerned, having heard the parties, that any recommendation on the subject matter of this referral could have implications for any possible future process arising from the dismissal. The function of the Court under the Industrial Relations Act is to make a recommendation that helps to resolve a dispute and the Court is concerned that to issue a recommendation in this case could affect the parties in an adverse manner, which would be entirely contrary to the Court’s role under the relevant Act.
Accordingly, in the circumstances the Court makes no recommendation on the subject matter of this referral at this time.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom Geraghty
MK______________________
28 January 2019Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Mary Kehoe, Court Secretary.