ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969

Investigation Recommendation Reference:

Parties:

	Worker	Employer
Anonymised Parties	Inspector	Company

Representatives

Aine Feeney SIPTU Workers Rights Centre

Dispute(s):

Act	Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969		15/02/2021

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes

Date of Hearing: 12/04/2022

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended)following 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 information relevant to the dispute.

Background:

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

Summary of Workers Case:

The worker submitted that he made a complaint in accordance with the grievance procedure, having raised the issue informally initially. He submitted that the grievance was not investigated in accordance with the internal procedures and in order to ensure due process and fair procedure in the matter he is seeking that the matter would be investigated by an independent external investigator.

The worker submitted that the grievance procedure sets out specific timelines and notes that the decision should issue within 10 working day of the conduct of the relevant meeting. The worker submitted that from the raising of the issue, it too almost 2 years to process the grievance.

The worker submitted that matters were also raised which ware outside the remit of the matter but which the worker feels were relied upon in order not to uphold his grievance. The worker suggested that this amounts to unacceptable behaviour on the part of the employer.

The worker suggested that decisions were taken in the course of the grievance procedure on the basis of documents which were not provided to the complainant.

Summary of Employer’s Case:

The employer submitted that the complainant raised his grievance in October 2019. As per the procedure informal discussions took place and the worker raised a written grievance on 25 October 2019.

During Stage 2 the complainant was raised on 25 October, a meeting took place on 1 November to investigate and his decision issued on 15 November 2019.

This was appealed and Stage 3 began in August 2020. The complaint was investigated, and a decision issued on 3 November 2020. The worker subsequently appealed the decision and Stage 4 of the policy commenced. An investigation into the matter took place between November 2020 and January 2021 and the decision issued on 27 January 2021

The employer submitted that the worker was fully heard and his complaint was thoroughly investigated by the employer.

The employer submitted that the policy was adhered to at every stage and the worker was provided with the right to be represented at each stage. The employer submitted that an independent and impartial person was appointed to hear and investigate the workers grievance at each stage of the policy.

Conclusions:

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

Having regard to the submissions of the parties, Stage 1 of the procedure appears to have been complied with. Stage 2 of the procedure calls for a meeting to take place with the investigator of the grievance within ten days of receiving the written grievance. This appears to have happened. Stage 2 also requires that a decision issue in relation to the grievance with ten working days of this meeting. The decision appears to have issued on the tenth day following the meeting

Stage 3 of the policy requires that a meeting take place with the worker with ten working days of receiving the written grievance. This did not happen. Stage 3 also requires that a decision issue in relation to the grievance with ten working days of this meeting. This did not happen.

Stage four requires that the appeal be heard within then working days of its receipt and that a decision issue within fifteen days. This did not happen.

Having regard to all the written and oral submissions made in respect of this complaint, I am satisfied that the worker has established that the employer did not adhere to the timelines laid down in the grievance procedure.

Recommendation:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

Having regard to all the written and oral submissions made in relation to this matter, I make the following recommendations:

I recommend that the grievance policy be amended to allow for additional time for the decision makers to render their decision and take into account the need, should it arise, for any additional investigations to be undertaken. I further recommend that additional allowance be made in the procedures to take into account the possible impact of Covid 19 or other similar external unknowns on the timelines of the procedure. Additionally, I recommend that the guidelines be amended to cater for longer holiday periods such as Christmas or summer holiday periods when various staff members may not be available.

I recommend that the employer draw up operating guidelines for staff of the Human Resources division to ascertain at the outset what constitutes a grievance under the policy and what aspects of a complaint fall to be considered under its Dignity at Work policy/procedure.

I recommend that the employer organise for a mediator to work with the parties to resolve this matter and I further recommend that the worker engage with mediation process.

Dated: 01/12/2022