Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

General Sales Assistant

Supermarket chain

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Industrial Relations Act 1969

CA-00034152

16.07.2021

The claimant had been employed as a General Sales Assistant with the respondent since 2006. The claimant asserted that he was unfairly treated when he was redeployed following the downgrading of the Store canteen. He asserted that he had been treated less favourably than his colleagues and while his grievance was processed through the company grievance procedure , he contended that the respondent failed to comply with the procedure .

The claimant’s union representative submitted as follows :

 1.The case before you today concerns a claim by Mr. Y

(hereinafter referred to as “the Claimant”) under Section 13 of the Industrial

Relations Act, 1969 to the effect that his employer (hereinafter

referred to as “the Respondent”) repeatedly overlooked the Claimant for his desired

role following the downgrading and decommissioning of the store’s canteen facility

and subsequently failed to act in accordance with their own grievance procedure

when investigating the matter.

Background

2. The Claimant commenced employment with the Respondent at their West of Ireland  store on the 26th of June 2006. The claimant is employed as a General Sales Assistant.

3. The Claimant’s employment has been largely uneventful. However, in 2019, the

company made the decision to downgrade the store canteen. This necessitated the

claimant to leave the canteen where he had been working as a cook/catering

assistant and to work elsewhere in the store.

4. The claimant was asked by the store manager to provide his preferences for location

of work. The claimant provided three preferred areas:

GHS (Grocery Home Shopping) Department

Phone Shop

SBO (Stock Control) Department

5. In Autumn 2019, the claimant, with the assistance of the Deputy Shop Steward, Mr.

X raised an individual grievance - believing they had been overlooked

for their desired role following the downgrading and decommissioning of the store’s

canteen facility - with Mr. A. Several meetings took place at which

the claimant, Mr. X , Mr. C (Personnel Manager) and Mr.A

 were present.

On the 2nd of December 2019, Mr. Ciaran Campbell, the

then Mandate Divisional Organiser for the North & West Division, wrote to Mr.A by registered post, requesting a meeting, so that the matter could be

resolved .

6. On the 20th of January, Mr. Campbell again wrote to Mr. A requesting a

response to his correspondence of the 2nd of December (Appendix 3). A log of

Mandate’s post book for the relevant dates is available (Appendix 4).

7. On the 22nd of July, Mr. Campbell again wrote to the Respondent, this time to the

Employee Relations Partner, requesting their intervention, as the matter had not

been dealt with satisfactorily at a local level .

8. The Respondent disputed whether they ever received the registered post-dated the

2nd of December 2019 and the 20th of January 2020. On the 4th of August 2020, Mr.

Campbell wrote to Mr.A enclosing both correspondence .

9. The union  again wrote to the company on the 21st of August 2020, regarding

correspondence received by the claimant on the 20th of August 2020 from Mr.B, Line Manager .

10. Following much delay, the Claimant’s Grievance was eventually scheduled to be

heard on the 25th of September 2020. The Investigating Officer, Mr. B

then had to recuse themselves of conducting the investigation as they were not in

position to investigate a more senior member of management .

11. Mr. D was appointed to hear the Claimant’s grievance, which this was heard

on the 19th of November 2021  with a subsequent grievance investigation meeting held on the 19th of January 2021

12. Mr.D  issued his findings on the 26th of March 2021. It was raised by the

Claimant’s representative at this meeting that Mr. X had not been interviewed

as part of the investigation .

13. The Claimant appealed Mr. D’s findings through his representative on the 13th of

April, setting out the substantive grounds of appeal .

14. Ms. E  was appointed to hear the Appeal, which took place on the

7th of May 2021 .

15. Following further investigation, the appeal manager met with the Claimant again on

the 1st of June 2021 .

16. The Appeal Manager issued their findings on the 18th of June 2021 (Appendix 15).

17. The matter was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission for Adjudication on

the 16th of July 2021 .

Union Position

Grievance Procedure

18. Mandate Trade Union and the Respondent have an agreed grievance procedure in

place to ensure that if issues arise that they are resolved in an efficient manner. The

agreement states:

“It is recognised that it is in the interests of both the staff and the company,

to agree and abide by the grievance procedure, under which matters arising

can be resolved as quickly as possible. Every effort will be made to try and

settle problems at the initial stages of the procedure.”

The grievance procedure goes on to state:

“Stage 1:

If a staff member has a problem or grievance, he / she should, in the first

place, raise the matter with his / her department manager / section manager

or appropriate member of management e.g. personnel manager. During this

meeting it is advised that the manager takes comprehensive notes, including

the reasons why the grievance is being taken .

19. It is not in dispute that several meetings took place between the Claimant and Mr.A, with Mr. X  present as the claimant’s representative in the

Autumn of 2019. It was established through the course of the Grievance that Mr.C was present at these meetings. The Respondent’s representative did not take

the opportunity to follow the grievance procedure as set out, which could have led

to the matter being resolved at the earliest possible opportunity

20. It would be anticipated in any investigation process whether under the Disciplinary

or Grievance Procedure, that all material witnesses would be interviewed. However,

the investigating manager, when questioned as part of the appeal, set out the

following justification for not interviewing Mr. X:

“I didn’t feel it necessary to interviewMr. X as the meeting was

agreed by all parties that it did take place.. I think by interviewing Mr.X that would be confirming full evidence of Mr.A’s  promise as

unofficial, as there was no notes seen or signed by Mr.A” .

21. In the interests of natural justice and fair procedure, it would be well established in

Industrial Relations that all material witnesses to events or incidents are interviewed

as part of the investigation process. It does not follow that those matters that are

only formally recorded are appropriate for consideration through the course of an

investigation if they have occurred in a formal setting.

22. It is the union’s contention that the process was prejudiced and that our member did

not have sufficient access to natural justice and fair procedure.

23. When the matter was escalated to Mr. Ciaran Campbell, he requested a meeting

with the Respondent. While the Respondent later disputed whether they received

this correspondence, there existed numerous opportunities for a meeting to be

scheduled so that the matter could be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties at

the earliest possible stage of the Grievance Procedure .

24. It is submitted that in LCR21919 Park Rite Unlimited Company and A Worker

(Appendix 19) the Labour Court held that;

“Having regard to all the circumstances and noting in particular the

procedural deficiencies highlighted above, the Court, on an exceptional

basis in relation to cases of this kind, is satisfied that an award of

compensation is appropriate to the particular circumstances of this case

and measures that compensation at €4,000. This should be paid to the

Claimant within six weeks of the date of this Recommendation. No element

of this award is in respect of pecuniary loss.”

Impact on the Claimant

25. Following the respondent’s decision to reorganise the canteen offering, the Claimant

engaged, in good faith, regarding alternative areas of work within the store within

their contractual liability. It is accepted that they set out their desired locations of

work following encouragement from the Respondent’s representative.

26. The claimant’s number one choice was to work in GHS, it is his and the union’s

contention that, since June of 2019, at least 17 staff have been placed into this area

of the business. Mr. A  has cited the pandemic and temporary variations in

the departmental business requirements for this department as a rationale for this.

However, it must be noted that the onset of the pandemic came eight months after

June 2019.

27. It must also be noted that those working in GHS regularly have access to premium

payments for working unsocial hours (before 8am).

28. The Claimant now works in the Phone Shop offering. However, prior to this, they

were denied the opportunity to apply for a role in this department when a vacancy

was advertised and filled during a period of annual leave, despite identifying this

department when the changes to the canteen were originally made. This oversight

means that they could have been placed in the Phone Shop at an earlier date.

29. The Claimant also expressed a desire to work in the SBO Department, however it is

put forward by the Respondent that no vacancy has arisen in the interim.

30. The Claimant would like it noted his frustration with a process that began with the

change in operation of the canteen facilities in 2019 which fundamentally led to his

grievance. Our member is most concerned that in future grievances are dealt with as

per the procedures and processed in a timely and efficient manner for all employees

of  the Respondent.

Conclusion

31. The Claimant respectfully requests that the Adjudication Officer finds that the

Claimant’s claim is well founded, and that the Claimant was repeatedly overlooked

for his desired roles following the downgrading and decommissioning of the store’s

canteen facility and that the Respondent subsequently failed to act in accordance

with their own grievance procedure when investigating the matter.

The claimant’s representative stated that while it was acknowledged that there had been several meetings on the matter , there had been little follow through and the failure to interview Mr.X rendered the investigatory process flawed. While the claimant was now happy in the phone shop he could have been placed there  earlier according to the union representative .

The respondent’s representative submitted as follows :

The case before you today concerns a claim by Mr. Y (the Complainant) represented by Mandate trade union alleging that he is in dispute with his employer (the Respondent) as set out in his WRC Complaint Form [Appendix 1] “stating that he has been and continues to be overlooked regarding a position in the Grocery Home Department of  his  Store”. 

Background to the Complainant 

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 26th June 2006 as a Customer Assistant, working part week between both the checkouts department and the Store Canteen area.  The Claimant has a fully flexible, permanent, greater than 35 hours contract of employment. The Claimant’s contract is a 5 over 7 (Sunday to Saturday) working week and his basic weekly earnings are €472.15 (gross) per week/ €13.49 per hour. The Claimant’s contract of employment is available at [Appendix 2].

As a customer assistant the Complainant is fully flexible to work in all areas of the store dependent on the needs of the business.

Background to the Claim

1.        On 22nd July 2020 Mr Ciaran Campbell sent a letter to the Employee Relations Department of the Respondent claiming the Complainant had exercised the individual grievance procedures regards a workplace issue that remained unresolved. It was also claimed by Mr Campbell that he had wrote to the store manager Mr.A on 1st December 2019 and 17th January 2020 and none of which received any attention [Appendix 3]. This letter was passed to the Complainants store manager to be addressed.

2.       It is important to set out at this juncture that the store manager did not receive any letter from Mr Campbell as alleged nor did the Complainant raise any concern in line with the Company/Union Grievance procedure and the Respondent was not aware of what the grievance related to.

3.       In an attempt to understand what the issue was so that it could be resolved for the Complainant, Mr.A  arranged for the Complainant’s line manager to meet with him. Additionally on 23rd July 2020 Mr .A  wrote to Mr Campbell expressing that he was not aware of any individual grievance raised by the Complainant and that he had not received any letters from Mr Campbell. Mr.A requested that he forward the letters to him. Mr .A  also set out that he will arrange for the matter to be discussed with the colleague concerned in line with the Company Grievance Procedure.

4.       On 25th July Mr.B  (Line Manager, ) had an informal discussion with the Complainant to attempt to understand what his issues related to. He stated that his issue was in relation to getting trained in the Grocery Home Shopping department (GHS) and that Mr.A  knew about it. He refused to give any further detail or discuss it with Mr. B.

5.       Mr .A  received a response to his letter on 4th August 2020 from Mr Campbell. Mr Campbell claimed that the Complainant had raised a complaint. He enclosed two unsigned letters not on headed paper that he claimed to have sent to Mr A. [Appendix 4]. It was still unclear at that point as to what the Complainant’s issue was.

6.       On 13th August 2020 in a further attempt to understand what the matter referred to in the letter related to, Mr .B  again met with the Complainant wherein he asked the Complainant if he wished to raise an informal or a formal grievance. The Complainant refused to discuss any issues with Mr.B and informed Mr.B that if he asked him again what his issue was, he would put in a complaint against him for harassment.

7.       Given the above responses and in a further attempt to resolve the matter for the Complainant, by letter dated 20th August 2020 Mr. B wrote to him setting out his position and reminding the Complainant of the grievance procedure 

8.       On 21st August 2020 Mr Campbell sent a letter to Mr .A  reference to various correspondence and ultimately set out that he was keen to meet with the Company.

9.       Notwithstanding the fact the Company remained unaware of what the grievance related to in an effort to understand the issue to be able to investigate same, Mr.B  wrote to the Complainant by letter dated 8th September 2020 inviting the Complainant to a grievance investigation hearing. This hearing was rearranged on two occasions due to the Complainant and his representative’s availability to attend the hearing .

10.   This hearing went ahead on 25th September 2020 whereby the Complainant was represented by his trade union official Mr. Ciaran Campbell. Mr. B  was assigned to chair this hearing on behalf of the Respondent.

11.   During this hearing it transpired that the Complainant’s grievance related to an issue that involved the Sligo Store Manager Mr.A – Mr.B  explained that he would have to adjourn the meeting until an appropriate person could be appointed to hear the grievance. Notes from this meeting are attached .

12.   The Complainant was subsequently notified by letter dated 9th November that his grievance would be heard by Mr. D  another (Store Manager) and would be held on 19th November 2020.

13.   The grievance hearing went ahead as planned on 19th November 2020 and the Complainant was again represented by Mr. Campbell. The grounds for the grievance were set out at the hearing. The Complainant alleged that when the canteen had been restructured in June 2019 he gave Mr.A  a list of his preferred three departments and whilst he was not accommodated another colleague was. The complainant set out the alleged as below:

·       That a vacancy arose and was advertised at a time when he was on leave, and another vacancy arose in GHS department and was filled by another colleague, so he lost out.

·       That when he raised the above regarding the GHS vacancy with Mr.A  at a meeting, Mr.A  said he totally forgot and would keep in his thoughts.

·       That there had been a number of opportunities he could have been accommodated but was instead overlooked for others.

·       That the GHS manager had told him that checkouts manager Mr.B  was not prepared to release him from the checkouts department and that this is despite the fact that others from the checkouts department have been released to move to departments he wanted to move to.

·       That Mr.A  was honour bound to help him obtain his preferred workplace option.

·       It was alleged that the above has compelled how the Complainant feels he is being treated unfairly, he is out of favour with local management and this effects his self-esteem and morale.

Notes from the grievance hearing  were attached .

14.   Following the grievance hearing with the Complainant, Mr. D  then proceeded to carry out witness investigation meetings with Mr. B , Mr F (GHS Line Manager) and Mr. A.

15.   Notes from the investigation meeting with Mr. B are attached at [Appendix 11] who maintained the view that he was not aware of any of the grievance issues in advance of holding the first meeting with the Complainant whereby he raised his grievance.

16.   Notes from the investigation meeting with Mr. F are attached at [Appendix 12]. He  stated that he was aware of the Complainant’s interest in moving the Grocery Home Shopping department, he had access to the Complainant during quiet periods and for some training sessions. Mr .F  stated that he no longer had access to the Complainant due to absence on the front-end (Checkouts) department and he refuted that the Complainant had been passed over, or that anybody moved to the Grocery Home Shopping department on a permanent basis as there was multi skilled colleague’s available prior to the Complainant’s move from the canteen. He  lastly stated that he no longer called upon the Complainant as the Complainant was now in the phone shop. 

17.   Notes from the investigation meeting with Mr. A are attached at [Appendix 13] and he maintained that the complainant had been accommodated with one of his preferred areas. Mr.A  stated that similarly there was another colleague who was subject to move from the canteen and was accommodated with her preference based on the existence of a vacancy within her chosen department at the time. Mr.A  stated that a position had become available in another area where the complainant had shown preference for, in the Grocery Home Shopping department for a relief driver and the complainant was unsuccessful on his application due to not holding a driver’s license. Mr.A  stated there has not been a position filled within the complainant’s remaining preference departments Grocery Home shopping and Stock Control (SBO) since the Complainant’s move from the canteen.

18.   Mr. D by letter dated 11th January 2021 invited the Complainant to a further investigation meeting to be held on 19th January 2021 for the purpose of giving him an opportunity to respond to the witness statements gather [Appendix 14]. This meeting went ahead with the Complainant and his representative and notes from that meeting are attached .

19.   By letter dated 13th March 2021 [Appendix 16] the Complainant was invited to a grievance outcome meeting on 26th March 2021. Notes from this meeting are attached .

20.   By letter dated 26th March 2021 the Complainant was issued with a written outcome in respect to his grievance [Appendix 18]. Overall, his grievance was not successful, and the grievance officer found that he was not treated unfairly, disadvantaged, or had not fallen out of favour with management. The grievance outcome provided as below:

·       At the time of the closure of the canteen there were no vacancies in any of the Complainants three preferred areas in which he wished to move. Another colleague to which the same applied did receive a position in one of her preferred areas however this was possible due to another employee having left the company and a position became available as a result.

·       The Complainant also alleged that another colleague was trained up and moved to the Phone Shop during a period when the Complainant was on holidays however it was found that this vacancy had arose in late 2019. A number of months subsequent to this the Complainant was successful for a vacancy that arose in the Phone Shop.

·       That a vacancy had arisen in the GHS department however the Complainants application for the position was unsuccessful as he did not hold a driver’s licence which was a requirement.

·       That the Store Manager Mr.A  was never going to move someone from a department to accommodate either the Complainant or the other colleague that moved from the canteen.

·       That during the grievance process the Complainant had made a successful application for a 25-hour role in the Phone Shop and that this was one of his preferences.

·       The grievance outcome concluded by providing that the Complainant had received training for working in the GHS Department however that this was to support the GHS Department on a temporary basis necessitated by the needs of the business.

·       It further provided that the Complainant had been successful in obtaining a role within one of his stated preferences in the Phone Shop.

·        It further concluded that the had applied and was interviewed for the only position in the GHS Department however he was not successful as he did not meet all the criteria required to perform all the duties of the role.

·       The grievance recommended that if a vacancy arose that the Complainant could apply for the role if he met the required criteria for that role.

·        It was also recommended that further training be organised by Store Management so that if there was further requirements within the GHS Department at any time that the Complainant would be in a position to put himself forward for either additional hours or to avail of a temporary move on a multi-skilled basis.

21.   The Complainant subsequently appealed the outcome of the grievance through his trade union official by letter dated 13th April 2021 and by letter dated 30th April the Complainant was informed that his appeal hearing would be heard by Ms. E , another external  Store Manager .

22.   The appeal hearing was held on the 7th May 2021 and was chaired by Ms.E. The Complainant was represented by his trade union official Mr. Ciaran Campbell. Notes from the appeal hearing are attached .

23.   One of the grounds for the Claimants appeal was that Mr.X  was not interviewed as part of the previous grievance investigation process.

24.   As a result, Ms.E  held a meeting with Mr. X  on 7th May 2021 and notes from this meeting are attached . Mr. X confirmed that he had been present at three informal meetings with the Complainant and Mr. A  regarding the three preferred choices he had put forward.

25.   A meeting was also held with Mr. Don 17th May 2021 regarding why he had not interviewed Mr. X  as part of the initial grievance investigation. He said that he hadn’t met with Mr. X  because there were no notes taken at any of these meetings as they were informal meetings. Notes from this meeting are attached .

26.   A meeting was also held with Mr. C  on 18th May 2021 as he was in attendance at a meeting with the Complainant and notes from this meeting are attached . Mr. C  only provided that he was present at meetings with the Complainant and other colleagues regarding the closure of the canteen and that he was not party to any other meetings after that.

27.   A meeting was also held with Mr.A  on 24th May 2021 and notes from this meeting are attached . Mr. A confirmed that he attended three informal meetings with the Complainant and Mr.X  firstly regarding the closure of the canteen, secondly regarding his chosen preferences and a further regarding a discussion about GHS. Mr. A  stated that he did not give the Complainant any guarantees that he would be given any particular position. Mr. A stated that he never stated that the Complainant could choose an area of the store that he could permanently work and as far as he was concerned the Complainant was now working in an area of the store under one of the options he provided.

28.   The Complainant was invited to a further meeting to give him an opportunity to respond to the statements gathered by Ms.E by letter dated 28th May 2021 [Appendix 25]. The Complainant was again represented by his trade union official Mr. Campbell and notes from this meeting are attached .

29.   By letter dated 19th June 2021 the Complainant was invited to an appeal outcome meeting to be held on 24th June 2021  and notes from this meeting are also attached .

30.   The Appeal Outcome letter is attached at [Appendix 29]. Overall, the Complainant’s grievance appeal, amongst other matters raised during the appeal hearing, was not successful and Ms .E upheld the grievance outcome. The Complainant was again advised that if a vacancy arises that he apply for the role if he met the criteria.

Company Position 

31.   The Company and Mandate trade union have an agreed grievance procedure in place to ensure that if issues arise that they are resolved in a correct and timely matter. The agreement states:

·       “It is recognised that it is in the interests of both the staff and the company, to agree and abide by the grievance procedure, under which matters arising can be resolved as quickly as possible. Every effort will be made to try and settle problems at the initial stages of the procedure, under which matters arising can be resolved as quickly as possible”.

·       It also sets out that “If a staff member has a problem or grievance regarding his/her job or his/her working conditions he/she should follow the grievance procedure.”  There are a number of stages set out for colleagues to follow[Appendix 30].

32.   The Respondent was not given the opportunity to resolve the issue when the issue arose and were met with constant barriers along the way in their efforts to firstly understand the issue and secondly in trying to resolve the issue for its colleague. As a result, the Company did not complete the grievance investigation until 26th March 2021 which was 6 months from when the Company were made aware that Complainant had an issue. This is despite the efforts of the Company to ensure the Complainant firstly understood the correct procedure to follow and secondly its efforts to understand what his grievance was. It was not until 25th September 2020 that the Respondent became aware of what the grievance related to.

33.   When the Complainant and his representative engaged in the correct process and set out the issues the Company investigated the matter in line with the Company/Union grievance procedures and the Company Policy relating to same [Appendix 31]. The Company gave a response to each point raised as part of the grievance process and are still at this stage unclear as to what the Complainant is seeking. This is not borne out of attempts by the Company to respond to the concerns of the colleague.

34.   The role of an Adjudication officer in an IR referral is to “investigate any trade dispute referred to him.. and shall, unless before doing so the dispute is settled, make a recommendation to the parties to the dispute setting forth his opinion on the merits of the dispute” (Section 13). This does not allow the Adjudication Officer to make specific findings as to what they consider the outcome of an internal investigation should be; rather their role within an Industrial Relations hearing is to assess whether the process conformed to the general principles set out in the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (SI146 of 2000).

Respectfully, it is not the function of the Adjudication Officer or Court to form an opinion as to whether the Respondent was objectively correct in their conclusions; rather its role is to establish if the Respondent acted fairly in its dealings with the Complainant.  

35.   In this regard the Respondent at each stage of their grievance and appeals procedure conformed to the general principles as set out in the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (SI146 of 2000). 

36.   The Complainant worked part of his rostered hours as a Customer Assistant in the canteen area. In June 2019 following the repurposing of the store canteen the Complainant as well as another colleague that worked in the canteen were asked to put forward their preferences in terms of what areas of the store they would prefer to work in should a vacancy exist. The Complainant put forward his three preferred options which were GHS (Grocery Home Shopping), the Phone Shop and the Stock Control Department (SBO). These preferred options were provided at that time to the Store Manager Mr. A. Unfortunately, at the time there was no vacancy in any of these departments.

37.   It is the Respondents position that when a position arose in the Phone Shop that the Complainant applied for it and was successful in obtaining that position.

38.   It is also the Respondents position that there was never a permanent position advertised in the GHS Department prior to the Complainant moving to the Phone Shop.

39.   It is also the Respondents position that the Complainant had applied and was interviewed for the only permanent position that had arose since in the GHS Department however, he was not successful as he did not meet all the criteria required to perform all the duties of the role.

40.   It is the Respondents position that the Complainant was never promised or guaranteed any particular job within the store following the restructure of the canteen. On the other hand, he was given the option to state which areas of the shop that he would prefer to work in. It was never the case that the Complainant could choose which area of the store that he could work in permanently. It is also the Respondents position that the Complainant is in fact presently working in an area that he had chosen as one of his preferred areas, namely the Phone Shop. This is the only permanent vacancy which had arose and for which the Complainant met the criteria for the role.

41.   Colleagues can be rostered to work in any area of the business in line with their contract of employment and agreements that govern same. The Company will always endeavour to support colleagues in the department they work in however there must be a vacancy. 

42.   The Company cannot be expected to place a colleague in an area where there is no vacancy and cannot countenance such a request. When the opportunity arose, the Complainant was placed into a vacant position in one of the areas of the store that he “preferred” to work.

43.   The Complainant’s claim that prior to this he was overlooked for the GHS department is simply not the case. It is the case however that during the COVID-19 pandemic colleagues temporarily supported all areas of the store and this included GHS and also the checkouts as these were the foremost service areas in the store. Equally the Company supported its colleagues including our colleagues in the clothing and non-food areas which were closed during level 5 lockdown where these colleagues had to be temporarily redeployed to other areas of the store which did include GHS. The company was reasonably practical during this time to ensure that all colleagues were supported and that we could continue to trade the store given the high level of absences that we saw at this time.  The Complainant continued to work in the checkouts department during this time.

Conclusion 

The Respondent respectfully requests that the Adjudication Officer finds that the Company has operated entirely within the content of its established agreements, that there is no case to answer and that the claim under the Industrial Relations Act, fails. 

The respondent’s representative was insistent that as the claimant incurred no loss , there was no remedy required   and the claimant had confirmed at the hearing that he was happy with his assignment to the phone shop. The HR manager submitted that the company could not countenance a situation where the employer had complied in full with the procedures , the claimant was now seeking a remedy as he did not accept the outcome of what the company believed was a fair and reasonable process. She asserted that such an action undermined the credibility of the entire procedure – a process  that is  the subject of agreement between the company and the union.

I have reviewed the submissions made at the hearing and noted the respective positions  of the parties. At the hearing , the claimant confirmed that he was happy with his redeployment to the phone shop. I am not in a position to offer a view on the dispute between the parties regarding the first 2 letters that the union maintain were sent by registered post  to the Store Manager A , in the absence of Mr.Campbell – who I understand no longer works for the union.

I have considered the voluminous submissions and minutes  presented which chronicle the processing of the claimant’s grievance. I believe there was confusion between the parties with respect to the status of the earlier meetings between the claimant , his shop steward and Manager A  – I have considered the findings of Ms.E  in relation to the matter of the alleged failure on the part of the respondent in failing to interview the Shop Steward – I note from the grievance procedure that there  is a strong emphasis on the imperative to agree minutes of meetings during the formal process – given these circumstances I find it not unreasonable for Manager D & Manager E to  conclude as they did in relation to relevance / value of witness testimony in the context of what by all accounts was an informal exchange.

 I have considered in detail the employers response during the course of the investigation to the various examples of alleged unfair treatment of the claimant vis a vis his other colleagues and having regard to1) the fact that the female colleague previously worked in a bakery  and  2) the fact that the claimant did not meet the criteria for selection for home shopping in his original application  I cannot find evidence of unfair treatment. While  I acknowledge  that the goal posts changed  with the respect to the matter of having a driving licence - given the evolving situation during Covid and the requirement for additional multi taskers  and accept that this contributed to the claimant’s perception of unfair treatment  , both managers D & E put forward plausible and convincing explanations for their finding against this element of the  claim of unfair treatment.  I accept that the claimant has cause to be aggrieved about the protracted nature of the grievance  process – however both parties have to accept responsibility for this and had the claimant engaged with his line manager earlier in the process about the source of his complaint  and not responded as he did by threatening his line manager  with a complaint of harassment  ,  the process may   well have concluded  at an earlier date. Ultimately the claimant got the assignment he wanted and confirmed same at the hearing .  In such   circumstances  , I cannot uphold the allegation of unfair treatment and find the employer acted in a reasonable manner. Given the confusion that arose with respect to informal vs formal processes  I recommend that the parties consider  revisiting  the terminology  used in the grievance  procedure so that both parties have a clear understanding of the distinction  between the status of informal and formal engagements.

I recommend against the claimant and do not uphold his compliants.