Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Caretaker

A Childcare Project

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-00023204-001

14/11/2018

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

CA-00023204-002

14/11/2018

The complainant remains an employee of the respondent and is out sick. He said that there was a culture of harassment in the workplace and he was placed in danger. This led him to require medical attention. The complaints relate to his line manager, who had asked the complainant to put these in writing and submit them to him. The complainant learnt that this was against policy as the complaints should have been made to a different manager. He later met with the two members of the HR committee. Following the grievance meeting of the 25th May, the bullying complaint was referred to mediation. This broke down on the last day and the respondent informed him that he could not go back to work.

The complainant said that he had not been paid for annual leave or public holidays in 2018. He was paid for one week of work in 2018 but not the two weeks stated in his pay slips. The complainant outlined that he was the caretaker of the respondent site and paid €390 per week. He was willing to go back to work but asked for a guarantee regarding the safety of his place of work, including the bullying. This matter related to respect and the complainant had been disrespected.

It was submitted that the complainant had made a complaint in writing, leading to an investigation and mediation. His complaint was not upheld. His appeal was dismissed as it was deemed out of time. A 10-day appeal period was not appropriate for someone on sick leave and no such period is stated in the grievance procedure. The reference to 10 days is what the Chair should do on receiving the appeal. The complainant had contacted the HR manager to indicate that he intended to appeal, and she informed him that this had to be referred to the Chair. It was submitted that the line manager went on the attack at the March 2018 meeting regarding the complainant’s sick absence. The following investigation was substandard as it did not interview the witnesses who attended the March 2018 meeting with the complainant and the line manager. The complainant commented that the line manager was a board member, while the process was done by other board members. The complainant outlined that he had raised health and safety issues, including fire doors and a fire alarm.

The respondent submitted that the sick notes provided by the complainant do not refer to the sickness as work-related. The bullying issues raised in the WRC complaint form were more vigorous than those raised in the internal process. It submitted that the issues raised by the complainant did not amount to bullying and were, at most, a once-off incident. The complainant had not asked at the May 2018 grievance meeting for the witnesses of the March meeting to be interviewed. He dropped this aspect of the bullying issue and concentrated on the mis-information issue. The minutes of the 25th May meeting were agreed by the complainant. The respondent had dealt with the bullying complaint through the formal grievance process. It confirmed that the line manager attended board meetings to input on finance and other issues but was not present when the board addressed staff issues. It submitted that the respondent had provided the complainant with reasonable time to appeal the grievance outcome, but his appeal was well outside this reasonable time period. The respondent denied that there were fire safety issues on site.

CA-00023204-001 and CA-00023204-002

The complainant remains on employee of the respondent and is out on sick leave. He wishes to return to work, should certain steps be taken by the respondent. The respondent wishes for the complainant to return to work.

The complainant submitted a grievance, dealt with by the respondent as a formal grievance. Step 2 of the grievance procedure was completed with the issue of the letter of the 11th September 2018. This states, “In line with Company procedures, you have the right to appeal against this decision as outlined at Step 3 of our Grievance Procedure. This should be done within ten working days of receiving this decision.” By email of the 24th September 2018, the complainant indicated that he wished to appeal the finding. He did so on the 24th October 2018. In the interim, the HR Manager twice emailed the complainant, raising the 10-day period in the email of the 21st October 2018.

I note that this matter commenced by way of the grievance of the 3rd April, leading to a grievance meeting of the 25th May and the outcome letter of the 11th September. In the context of the time taken to complete each step of the grievance process, the complainant’s delay from the 11th September to the 24th October in lodging his appeal is not out-of-step with the other delays in this process. The complainant’s delay was not unreasonable.

Moreover, Step 3 of the grievance procedure does not mandate any period within which an appeal should be lodged (as opposed to the bullying procedure, which provides for such a limitation period). The reference to 10 days in the grievance procedure relates to what the Chair should do on receiving the appeal.

In these circumstances, I recommend that the respondent accept the complainant’s appeal of the 24th October 2018 and refer it for determination in line with Step 3 of the Grievance Procedure, i.e. by the Chairman or authorised designate.

CA-00023204-001 and CA-00023204-002

I recommend that the respondent accept the complainant’s grievance appeal of the 24th October 2018 and hear the appeal in line with Step 3 of the grievance procedure.

Grievance procedure / period to appeal