ADJ-00018719

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Credit Union employee

A Credit Union

Representatives

  SIPTU

 Collier Broderick Management Consultants

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-00024128-001

14/12/2018

The worker has been employed by the employer since 2005 and is currently employed as a Cashier. The current dispute arises as a result of an interaction between the worker and a difficult customer who attended the Credit Union on or about 27^th April 2018. The worker submitted a formal grievance on the basis that she had not been supported by management during the incident as well as afterwards and is seeking that a policy be put in place relating to such matters. The worker is also seeking that, as a gesture of good will, she be compensated with the restoration of her sick leave entitlements.

The worker submits that she was badly treated by an irate customer on 27^th April 2018 and sought the support of her supervisor and senior management on the day in relation to having another member of staff deal with the customer instead. The worker stated both the supervisor and the line manager informed her that she must return to the customer and complete the transaction. The worker stated that this placed her under unnecessary stress and she was subsequently certified as medically unfit to attend work from the end of April 2018 until November 2018. The worker stated that she was diagnosed with workplace stress which she contends was caused by a lack of support from management following the incident with the customer.

The employer stated that the worker utilised all four stages of its the grievance procedure in relation to the incident that occurred on 27^th April 2018 but was dissatisfied with the outcome of that process. The employer’s position is that the grievance process was carried out in line with policies and procedures and the worker’s complaint is without merit. The employer further stated that in relation to the restoration of the worker’s sick leave, there was no formal grievance raised at local level. The employer confirmed that the grievance procedure is available to be utilised by the worker on this issue.

The subject matter of this dispute was resolved between the parties at the adjudication hearing. The settlement was subject to Board approval which was granted a week after the adjudication hearing had concluded. It was subsequently confirmed that the worker did not accept the settlement terms and sought a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

I note that the dispute concerns the workers contention that she was not supported by management at the time of the customer incident and other issues surrounding the introduction of a policy in relation to dealing with difficult customers. The policy (at the date of the adjudication hearing) was not yet finalised. 

In relation to the grievance process, I have reviewed the documentation supplied and do not find that there were any shortcomings in relation to that process. In relation to the policy that is under consideration regarding difficult customers, this policy should be finalised and implemented as a matter of urgency.

The second issue relates to the restoration of the worker’s sick pay which was not raised as a grievance. The Union stated in an email in December 2018 that it had not raised a grievance on the issue as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) had denied the request and he was the most senior person in the Credit Union. In those circumstances, the Union felt there was little point in raising a formal grievance.

On this issue I note the Labour Court Decision in Geoghegan T/A Taps v a Worker INT 1014 which states as follows:

 “The Court is not prepared to insert itself into the procedural process in a situation where the dispute procedures have been bypassed”.  

It is well established that an Adjudication Officer of the Workplace Relations Commission or the Labour Court will not intervene in a dispute under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, until all internal grievance procedures have been fully exhausted. This has clearly not happened in the circumstances of the present dispute. 

Having considered the submissions of both parties, I recommend that the employer, if it has not already done so, finalises its policy in relation to dealing with difficult customers within the next 6 weeks.

In relation to the restoration of the worker’s sick leave entitlements, I recommend that, on receipt of a formal grievance, this issue be dealt with in line with the employer’s grievance procedures.

Internal grievance procedures