ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969

Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00000042

Parties:

	Worker	Employer
Anonymised Parties	Care Worker	Charity

Representatives

Self

Fiona Egan Peninsula Group Limited

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	IR - SC - 00000042	04/04/2022

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton

Date of Hearing: 25/10/2022

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended)following the referral of the dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute(s).

Background:

The worker raised several issues with their line management concerning his safety at work and the Charity’s policy concerning challenging service users and how that may impact on the safety of the worker.

It appears to the worker that in raising the grievance he became the victim of a process that labelled him as prejudiced regarding a segment of the client group. That manifested in remarks that were not properly put to the worker and were contained in a confidential report arising from the grievance.

The worker fears that this conclusion potentially has negative implications for his future progression with the Charity.

Summary of Workers Case:

The worker argues that he raised a grievance in line with the organisations policy and arising from that grievance he was penalised. He stated that he in fact suffered loss as he was no longer provided any shift work pending the outcome of the investigation. Also, he fears that his personnel record will be tainted by unfounded remarks made in that report.

Summary of Employer’s Case:

The organisation took the complaint very seriously. The worker is held in high regard and in fact has moved to another work area in a regular role and no longer is filling relief slots. There were some mistakes made in how the report was written. However, the organisation apologises for those remarks and the matter is closed with no record held on the workers file with any adverse or negative review relating to this matter. The worker was not scheduled for shifts based on the belief that he was unavailable due to sickness.

Conclusions:

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

The worker is held in high regard and has now moved to another work unit in a more stable role and finds the working relationship positive.

Inadvertently the worker was not scheduled for shifts and the organisation acknowledges that gave rise to loss.

No adverse finding has been made against the worker and no record whatsoever regarding this investigation has been or will be placed on the worker’s file.

Allowing for the effects on the worker and the financial loss incurred though inadvertently, in full and final settlement concerning all matters related to these complaints and disputes I recommend that the employer pay the worker €4000.

Recommendation:

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

The employer has agreed that no record whatsoever will be held on the workers personnel file concerning the disputes before me. It is part of this recommendation that I also state that no adverse record concerning these disputes will be ever held on the file.

Dated: 02/12/2022