Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Driver

A logistics company

Representatives

 Communication Workers Union

Conor O'Gorman ,IBEC Executive

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-00029195-001

20/06/2019

The Dispute arose between a long-standing Driver and his employer following an incident at work in May ,2018.

The Claimant activated the company grievance procedure and remained dissatisfied with the outcome. The Employer approached the case from a pragmatic angle and sought to work with the claimant and his Union in formulating an action plan to resolve the issue.

Both parties were represented at hearing, the claimant by his Union, CWU and the Employer by IBEC. Both parties compiled and presented helpful written submissions.

The Claimant had worked without incident for 18 years. His work as a Driver involved driving from his base to the company depot based at a named Airport.

On a day in May 2018, he was accused by his Team Leader of uttering a profanity to an Airport Police Officer. He was shocked when this was brought to his attention and denied it. He confirmed that an issue had existed in relation to one of his seals, but it had not been framed in a profanity.

The accusation lingered with the claimant and he decided to submit a grievance against his Team Lead of 10 years. The Union raised several points of dissatisfaction on the procedural pathway that followed this grievance. The Claimant appealed this outcome which lead to a certain amount of stalemate as witness recollection of events differed, several procedural shortcomings were highlighted. The Employer accepted that the initial investigation was flawed.

The Claimant presented at hearing carrying a heightened sense of injustice. He had expressed a wish for an apology from his Team Lead and this had got lost in the process that followed. He contended that he had been treated unfairly by his employer and this had caused him a huge amount of stress and upset for which he sought compensation.

The Employer is a large Logistics Company. The Company Representative outlined the nature of “air-side clearance “for Duties at a named Airport.

The Employer submitted that the Claimants Team Lead had inquired whether the claimant had sworn at a member of Airport Police? The claimant had denied swearing and no further action was taken.

The next day, the Employer accepted a grievance raised by the claimant, investigated it and provided an outcome on 12 July 2018. The grievance was not upheld.

The Employer accepted an appeal of this decision and found that the investigation was flawed for not having interviewed the witness cited by the claimant, however, this did not render the outcome of the grievance as incorrect.

The Employer contended that the Team Leader had sought to resolve the matter informally with the claimant. This was a reasonable course of action to take by him.

The Employer concluded by submitting that the grievance had been dealt with in a reasonable fashion and the matter should be closed.

I found parties in the case to be solution focussed. I have read all submissions and notes of the procedural framework adopted in the case to date. It is fair to state that lessons may have been learned by both parties.

What is important to reflect on is that the parties had a cordial and respectful employment relationship prior to 25 May 2018, the date of the grievance. It must be a priority for the parties to return to that equilibrium. However, there are some obstacles at present. I note that the parties had entered some discussions post appeal outcome, but resolution had remained outside the parties grasp.

The Claimant has retained ownership of a heightened sense of grievance, which he considers remains unresolved through the company efforts. He contends that this is holding him back and causing him stress. Thankfully, he has not been absent from work, however, it remains “an open wound “.

The Employer contends that they have made reasonable efforts to resolve the issue but faced a stalemate through witness evidence. The Employer has accepted some notable omissions occurred during this grievance.

For my part, I listened to the parties on both of their ideas of how best to move forward in the case. The Claimant explained that his quest for compensation arose from his frustrations that he was unable to secure an apology for the way he was spoken to during his work on May 24, 2018.The Employer reflected on possible avenues to effect closure on the case.

I was struck that the immediate mutual joint concern must be centred on preserving a safe place of work for the claimant. He expressed a sense of alienation from this employer for whom he has worked for almost 2 decades. I was concerned that he based some of his concerns on what others in employment think. I found this a distraction and unhelpful to exploring remedial moves to stabilise his employment relationship.

The Employer tabled the following proposal which, on consideration has been accepted by the Union on behalf of the Claimant.

1.       The Employer has agreed to issue an apology to the complainant in respect of the procedural shortcomings endured by the claimant during his grievance pathway.

2.       The Employer is prepared to Commission an agreed Mediator for the sole purpose of restoring the good working relationship between the parties at the centre of this Dispute.

3.       The Complainant had committed to participating in that process.

Both parties agreed to work on making this happen straightaway.

Nothing in what’s happened to date should serve as a disincentive for the claimant to action company procedures if required.

I have found merit in this Dispute.

Recommendation:

I have found merit in this Dispute

1.       The Employer has agreed to issue an apology to the complainant in respect of the procedural shortcomings endured by the claimant during his grievance pathway.

2.       The Employer is prepared to Commission an agreed Mediator for the sole purpose of restoring the good working relationship between the parties at the centre of this Dispute.

3.       The Complainant has committed to participation in that process.

Appeal of Grievance.