FULL RECOMMENDATION
PARTIES : TIPPERARY COUNTY EMPLOYER/TIPPERARY COUNTY COUNCIL DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1.Appeal of Adjudication Officer’s Decision No’s: ADJ-00031438, CA-00041843-001. The Employee has requested the Adjudication Officer to recommend an investigation and award compensation arising from his grievance and as stated above I do consider a work-related stress allegation could fit into a Trade Despite as it relates to conditions of employment, in its broadest sense. However, the Employee is making serious allegations against a colleague relating to matters outside of work which he did not substantiate at the Hearing of in his submission with any evidence. In the absence of this evidence it is inappropriate for the Adjudication Officer to assume the allegations are correct and therefore from an IR consequence perspective, has an influence on the work environment and condition of employee of the Employee, as alleged. In addition, and critically, no evidence of stress in the workplace was provided by the Employee. Therefore, in the absence of any of this evidence, I find in favour of the Employer and have no further action to recommend in favour of the Employee.
This is an appeal by the Worker of Recommendation ADJ-00031438 of an Adjudication Officer in respect of the Worker’s complaint that his Employer refused to process his grievance. Summary of Worker’s submission The Worker has been employed for over twenty years and has an exemplary record. An issue arose not related to his employment which involved the Gardai and an other member of the Council who the Worker has a reporting relationship with. Following that incident, the Worker had concerns about his working environment and the fact that he felt his working relationship with the other individual had been compromised. He wrote to the Employer on 7th October 2020 stating that he wanted to raise these issues and invoked the grievance procedure. In the letter he also made reference to the issues relating to the Garda intervention. No reply was received from the employer so SIPTU on behalf of the Worker sent a follow up letter on the 20/10/20 and the 3/11/29. A response dated the 30/10/20 was received from the Employer stating that the grievance was not appropriate to be dealt with under their grievance procedure. On the 7 January 2021 the issue was referred to Adjudication. SIPTU on behalf of the worker submitted that the Worker had raised issues about his work environment and working relationships and was entitled under the grievance process to have his grievance heard. SIPTU are seeking that his grievance be processed and that he be awarded compensation. Summary of Employer’s submission The Employer submitted that because there was an issue being investigated by the Garda, they believed they could not investigate his grievance. They also submitted that they did not believe that his grievance fell within the definition of a Trade Dispute. The Employer submitted that they had spoken to the other person who advised that he was not the Worker’s direct line manager and did not have any engagement with him and on that basis, they decided not to process his grievance. The Employer submitted that there was no bona fide dispute and that the Court should dismiss the complaint. Decision During the hearing, it was accepted by the parties that the Employer could not investigate the issue in this case that was investigated by the Gardai. However, in his letter of complaint the Worker had clearly identified that there were also workplace issues regarding his working environment and a working relationship with a member of staff. It was clarified that the Worker does not have a direct reporting relationship with this other person but from time to time they can cross paths. The Court notes that the failure of the Employer to engage with the Worker in relation to his grievances in respect of the workplace, has led to hearings at the WRC and Labour Court all of which could have been avoided if they had engaged with him locally when he first lodged his grievance. In respect of the workplace issues i.e. his working environment and his working relationship, the Court recommends that the Employer meets with the Worker and his Union representative on these issues and that all parties engage in a proactive manner to resolve any issues that may exist. In respect of SIPTU’s claim for compensation for the Worker, the Court finds that this is not an issue that can be resolved by way of compensation. The Court taking all things into consideration sets aside the decision of the Adjudication Officer. The appeal succeeds. The Court so decides.
NOTE |
