ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00022854
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A County Council Employee | A County Council |
Dispute:
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-00029409-001 | 02/07/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 05/12/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Andrew Heavey
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.
Background:
This dispute arises as a result of a previous adjudication process. (ADJ-000-12213 refers) In that dispute the Adjudication Officer recommended that the parties enter into mediation in an attempt to resolve the worker’s issues. The mediation was unsuccessful, and the worker subsequently appealed the Adjudication Officer’s recommendation to the Labour Court. The Labour Court in LCR21861 did not find in favour of the worker’s appeal. The within dispute arises as a result of confidential information being provided by the employer to the Labour Court in the appeal documentation concerning ADJ-000-12213. |
Summary of Worker’s Case:
The worker contends that the employer has breached the Mediation Agreement in relation to the previous dispute. The worker outlined that the employer outlined what the worker had sought in the mediation process in its submissions to the Labour Court in the previous appeal. The worker stated that Point 8 of the Agreement to Mediate which was signed by both parties states as follows: “I understand that information gathered in the Mediation process is confidential and privileged. No recording devices may be used. Neither the Mediator nor any party to the Mediation shall divulge any information gained in the Mediation process nor seek to have the Mediator or any party to the Mediation divulge information in relation to that Mediation in any setting whatsoever. In the event that it is necessary for a third party to be consulted in the context of a solution, prior agreement will be sought from the parties in dispute.” The worker stated that the employer clearly breached the Agreement to Mediate and was also dishonest in its recollection of how and when the proposal from the worker had been put forward during the mediation process. The worker stated that the employer’s actions have made his position in the employment untenable. He is seeking a severance package from the employer. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The employer contends that the worker is effectively seeking to appeal a Labour Court Decision by referring the matter back to the WRC. The employer asserts that the WRC does not have jurisdiction to investigate this dispute. The employer quoted Section 13(3)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 which states: “(b) a rights commissioner shall not investigate a trade dispute – (i) if the Court has made a recommendation in relation to the dispute” On the substantive issue, the employer refutes that it has sought to make the worker’s position untenable and to bring about his resignation. The employer stated that the worker has been absent since 2017 and currently resides abroad. The employer stated that it has consistently engaged with the worker to facilitate a return to work and to resolve any issues that may exist. The employer contends that there is no merit in the dispute, and it should be dismissed. |
Findings and Conclusions:
In relation to the matter of jurisdiction, I find that this dispute arose as a result of the employer’s actions in submitting documentation to the Labour Court on a previous matter. The employer confirmed that the submissions were not read out at the Labour Court hearing and the worker only became aware of the contents of the employer’s submissions after the Labour Court hearing had concluded. In my view, this dispute arose separately and after the Labour Court hearing had concluded. In those circumstances, I find I am not precluded from investigating the dispute. Having considered the matter and notwithstanding the employer’s error in including specific details relating to the mediation in its previous submissions to the Labour Court, I do not find that the issue is of significant importance to warrant a severance package and the termination of the worker’s employment. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
Having considered the submissions of both parties, I do not recommend in favour of the worker. |
Dated: 14th April 2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Andrew Heavey
Key Words:
Mediation agreement, Severance Package |