Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Warehouse Operative

A supplier of parts

Representatives

None 

Mason Hayes & Curran Solicitors

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-00025277-001

24/01/2019

At the outset of the hearing, the worker said that he could not proceed because the employer was legally represented. He stated that he was at a disadvantage and asked if he could bring a lawyer. He said that the member of management about whom he had raised a grievance was not present.

The worker outlined that he began working for the employer on 17 July 2017 and they moved to new premises in October 2018. In 2017, he made complaints to the HR department in relation to a manager. They said that this had been investigated, but nothing happened. He also contacted the HR department in the UK and a HR representative met the worker, the manager and others. She concluded that his grievance was not well founded. The worker did not appeal this outcome and referred the matter to the Workplace Relations Commission.

In respect of the final written warning issued on 4 February 2019, the worker said that this had been overturned entirely on appeal. He said that it should not have reached this point. There had been discrepancies in the witness statements against him. The worker outlined that he was the only member of staff questioned about the tampering of the CCTV camera. He said that this CCTV camera was located in a changing room. Witness statements were not taken from others. The employer had not indicated an outcome to this disciplinary process. The worker referred to ongoing issues in the workplace, including the belittling of staff.

In reply to the employer, the worker said that he had engaged with the disciplinary process regarding the CCTV camera. He had said that he had nothing to say. He was further threatened by the manager in January 2019, but nothing happened when he reported this. He had told his manager that he could come in to make a statement about the workplace accident at any time.

The employer outlined that the worker had raised several sets of issues in this dispute. It had fully investigated the initial grievance and he was offered the right of appeal. There was no further word from the worker until the submission of the WRC complaint. There were complaints from staff in January 2019, which the employer investigated. The worker would not engage. The employer decided to suspend the worker, having spoken to staff members. The final written warning issued to the worker was overturned on appeal.

The CCTV disciplinary process has been suspended as the worker was now off sick. The employer is entitled to investigate this matter without the WRC becoming involved in a live process. Employees are obliged to either invoke or exhaust employer procedures.  The worker has not raised issues regarding the workplace (for example booking time to visit a doctor or time spent in the bathroom). He had not made a second grievance. The worker was suspended on 25 January 2019 and returned on Monday, 25 February. His sick leave began on 1 March 2019 following a workplace accident. The employer said that the room in which the CCTV camera was installed was a locker room and not a changing room. It installed CCTV following thefts.

The worker initially stated that he was not willing to participate in the adjudication because a solicitor was in attendance with three employer witnesses. I explained to the parties that the hearing would be conducted fairly and that they would have the opportunity to state their case. Both parties did so and had the right to reply to what was said by the other side.

The worker raises several issues regarding his workplace. One arises from a grievance investigation completed in October 2018. A second relates to a disciplinary process where the adverse finding made against him was overturned on appeal. A third relates to a new and ongoing disciplinary process relating to a CCTV camera in a room (described by the worker as the changing room and the employer as the locker room). A fourth relates to issues raised by the worker regarding the workplace. A fifth relates to the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work process to follow the workplace accident of 28 February 2019.

In Labour Court Decision No: INT1014 Gregory Geoghegan T/A TAPS v A Worker, the Court stated: “The Court is not prepared to insert itself into the procedural process in a situation where the dispute procedures have been bypassed”.

Taking this guidance of the Labour Court, I note that there was no appeal to the grievance investigation completed in October 2018.It is not appropriate for this adjudication to make findings on this process. I note that the worker criticised and successfully challenged the disciplinary process initiated against him in January 2019. This is a case where the employer implemented its procedures to the worker’s benefit. The CCTV disciplinary process is ongoing and must be allowed proceed according to policy. The worker identified other issues in workplace but none of these have been formally put to the employer. The worker did not avail of internal procedures to raise these matters. It is, therefore, not appropriate for this adjudication to consider them. The process following the workplace accident of 28 February 2019 is ongoing and should be completed in accordance with policy.

As submitted by the employer, it is not appropriate for this adjudication to make a recommendation on any of the issues raised in this dispute.

CA-00025277-001

For the reasons set out above, I do not make a recommendation in this dispute.

Industrial Relations Act / duty to invoke and exhaust procedures