Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Sales Assistant

Retailer

Representatives

Michael Meegan of  Mandate Trade Union

Niamh Ní Cheallaigh of IBEC

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-00040924-001

11/11/2020

At the start of the hearing I explained that the recent Supreme Court judgement in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer and WRC did not apply to disputes taken under the Industrial Relations Act, which do not require the administration of justice. These disputes will continue to be held in private. Also, the requirement to take evidence on oath is not applicable.

The worker was employed by the employer from 6 January 2007. He lodged a grievance against his line manager and says that the employer failed to properly address the grievance. In April 2020 he was told the grievance was closed.

The worker was employed by the employer from 6 January 2007. On 20 February 2018 he met with the Personnel Officer and lodged a grievance against his line manager. The following day he was diagnosed with work-related stress by his GP. He remained unfit to return to work until his dismissal on 11 January 2021, on the grounds of health.

On 20 December 2018 the worker’s representative wrote to the Store Manager requesting a meeting to discuss an exit package for the worker but the Store Manager did not respond.

On 8 October 2019 the worker’s representative wrote to the Store Manager again requesting the grievance be dealt with through the employer’s Grievance Procedures. A reminder was sent on 14 November 2019. A meeting was arranged but the worker’s doctor did not deem him fit to attend. He was unable to attend on a further two dates.

On 27 October 2020 the worker forwarded a further grievance against the employer and Mandate contacted the Store Manager requesting an urgent meeting regarding the current grievance. On 9 November 2020 the Store Manager forwarded a letter sent to the worker wherein it was said they were considering whether to hold his position open because of his continuing absence.

The worker contends he co-operated with the employer’s Grievance Procedures but the employer failed to address his grievances. In view of this the worker is seeking compensation of €70,000.

The employer says that the worker went on sick leave on 20 February 2018. He raised a grievance against his line manager on 27 April 2018. The grievance related to a number of incidents but he did not provide details of the alleged incidents. The store where the worker was employed wrote to him on numerous occasions requesting meetings but the worker did not engage. There were a number of welfare meetings and the worker maintained his absence was due to work related stress.

On 14 November 2019, 18 months after raising the grievance the worker documented 3 incidents he alleged occurred over the period 2016-2018 but gave no dates and no witnesses were referenced. The employer investigated the allegations on the basis of the information provided. Meetings were arranged with the worker on 22 November and 12 December 2019 which he failed to attend. He was invited to a further meeting on 31 January 2020 which he failed to attend.

During this period the employer was managing his long-term absence. In September 2018 an Occupational Health assessment concluded the worker was “medically fit to return to work. He is also medically fit to engage with HR management to explore his work-related concerns”. A further assessment took place on 30 January 2019 but the worker did not consent to the employer receiving the report.

On 6 January 2020 he was invited to a review meeting and was told if he could not attend he could provide a report from his doctor in relation to his fitness to return to work. He did not attend and did not provide a medical report. The meeting took place in his absence and the Store Manager decided to place the worker on notice of termination. Before the letter was issued the worker sent many emails to many people asking for his grievances to be addressed. He was advised to follow the grievance policy. A senior manager outside of the store was appointed to investigate the grievances. The senior manager emailed the worker on a number of occasions in an attempt to engage with the worker. He did not attend a meeting with senior manager. The matter was closed on 22 April 2020.

The employer made a number of attempts, from September 2020 to engage with the worker. His Mandate representative made contact and asked for the grievance to be addressed. On 30 November 2020 the Store Manager wrote to the worker to confirm his decision to terminate his employment on the grounds of ill health.

The employer says they made numerous attempts to address the worker’s grievances but he failed to engage with them to allow them an opportunity to resolve his concerns.   

This is difficult dispute as the worker went on sick leave on 20 February 2018 and, on his doctor’s advice, did not consider himself fit to return to work before his dismissal on 30 November 2020. He raised concerns about his employment and the basis of his dispute is that the employer failed to investigate these concerns properly. The employer says they attempted on many occasions to engage with the worker to investigate his concerns but the worker did not engage with them.

I accept the employer’s evidence of their repeated efforts to act in accordance with their procedures to look into the worker’s allegations. These attempts were frustrated on many occasions by the worker’s lack of engagement. I accept this may have caused by his illness and advice from his doctor. However, I cannot agree the lack of investigation was caused by the employer’s inaction. It resulted from the worker’s lack of engagement and his lack of any visible efforts to let the employer know when he might be able to engage.   

I am unable to make any recommendation in this dispute, other than for the worker to accept what happened.