LCR22618

SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES :

MARRIOT INTERNATIONAL T/A LUXURY RESERVATIONS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY MR. TOM MALLON B.L. INSTRUCED BY O'FLYNN EXHAM'S SOLICITORS)

- AND -

A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY MS. LORNA MADDEN B.L.
INSTRUCTED BY FINBARR MURPHY SOLICITORS)

DIVISION :

SUBJECT:1.Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No(s). ADJ-00036177 CA-00039715-002.

BACKGROUND:

2.This matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and Recommendation. On 12 January 2022 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-

“From the submissions made to me at the hearing it is clear that the grievance and disciplinary procedures of the Employer do not comply with the General Principles ofS.I. 146/2000 Industrial Relations Act, 1990 (Code of Practice of Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures) (Declaration) Order, 2000in that the Employee is not allowed individual trade union representation of her choice when either processing a grievance or being subject to disciplinary procedures. I therefore recommend that the Employer amend the grievance and disciplinary procedures as applicable to the Employee as to be compliant with the foregoing Code in the matter of trade union representation on an individual basis. ”

The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 16 February 2022 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

A Labour Court Hearing took place on 26 May 2022.


DECISION:

This case is an appeal by a Worker of the decision of an Adjudication Officer. The Complainant was employed by a company called Starwood Reservations Limited from January 2014. On the 1^stApril 2020 her employment was transferred to the Respondent. The Complainant submits that her terms and conditions of employment were adversely affected by the transfer.

Worker’s submission

Ms Madden BL submitted that the Worker submitted a grievance to her Employer arising from the Transfer of Undertakings and the manner in which she was now to be compensated for public holidays on the 25^thMarch 2020.

On the 3^rdApril 2020 the Worker received a new Contract and she advised her employer that she could not sign it until the issues she had raised in her grievance were addressed. The Employer’s grievance procedures set out timelines for processing grievances none of which were adhered to.

The Complainant had her first grievance meeting on the 26^thMay 2020, but the issues were not resolved, and her grievance moved to stage two of the process. At the stage two meeting she was accompanied by a work colleague who was informed by the person chairing the meeting that her role was as a witness which is an observatory role. By letter of 18^thJune, the Worker was advised that her grievance was not upheld and advised of the next step in the process if she was unhappy with the outcome. On the 26^thJune 2020 the Worker had a stage three meeting again the person with her was informed that her role was that of a support person. The Worker was also advised that this was the final stage of the process.

The Worker did not receive the outcome of that meeting until the 1^stSeptember 2020 over two months after the meeting took place, and contrary to the timelines in the Employers policy.

Ms Madden BL submitted that the Employers breached their own procedure in that it took five months for the grievance to be processed and that the Employers procedure does not comply with S. I. 146/2000 Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary procedures, as it does not provide for representation at the meetings.

Employer’s submission

Mr Mallon BL on behalf of the Employer submitted that the grievance was processed as expeditiously as possible taking into account the sudden and unprecedented lockdown of the country and the fact that the Employer was trying to manage a transfer of undertakings and process a number of grievance complaints arising from same during that period.

The timelines set out in the Employer’s policy are indicative and not absolute.

Mr Mallon BL submitted that in the main the grievance was processed in a timely manner with a short delay in issuing the final decision. Taking into consideration what was happening at the time that could not be said to be an unreasonable delay. The Employer’s policy provides for the Worker to be accompanied by a work colleague and at each stage of the process the Worker was accompanied. The Worker never sought to have representation or to be accompanied by someone other than a work colleague. as happened in this case.

Discussion and decision

The Court having carefully read all the submissions and listened to the oral submissions on the day accepts that the circumstances that prevailed at the time were difficult. It was also a difficult time for the Worker who was seeking clarification on issues of concern to her. The Court notes that in general the grievance was moved along in a timely manner albeit not within the timelines in the policy, with the exception of the unexplained delay from the date of the final meeting to the issuing of the outcome of same two months later. The Court also notes from the Employer’s grievance policy and the notes of the grievance meetings that were provided that the Employers policy does not comply with the requirement of S.I 146/2000 in that it does not provide for representation at meetings in respect of grievance. The Court finds that the Employer should amend their grievance policy to ensure it complies with the requirements of S.I. 146/2000 and that the Employer should pay the Worker compensation of €1,000 in full and final settlement of this complaint.

The Decision of the Adjudication officer is varied accordingly

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
TH	______________________
24 June 2022	Deputy Chairman