ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: ADJ-00036408
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A worker | A third level institution |
Representatives | Barnaba Dorda SIPTU | Vincent Bradley, BDO Eaton Square |
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 |
| 10/12/2021 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Date of Hearing: 27/09/2022
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:
The worker is an employee of long standing with a third level institution. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The worker raised an informal grievance arising from an incident with his line manager. He raised an informal grievance on 29 January 2021. The HR manager suggested that he attend his GP. Following medical advice, he went out of work until after the matter was resolved. At the request of his employer, he attended an occupational health specialist. This report was provided to the employer on 12 February 2021. The worker submitted that his grievance was not processed in a timely manner, and this resulted in him having to take a formal grievance on 18 May 2021. The worker outlined that he was out sick from work for six months, three at full pay and three at half pay. He submitted that he had a loss of earnings of €4431.50 and is seeking a recommendation for compensation of this amount. He is also seeking a recommendation for the restoration of his sick leave entitlements. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The employer submitted that although there was a delay in processing the workers grievance, there was no intent to delay matters and furthermore that the delay was not absurdly long. The employer submitted that some of the delay can be explained by a bereavement and sick leave taken by the staff dealing with these matters. The employer submitted that its hands are tied in relation to the sick scheme in that this may have a knock-on effect on other employees. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. The parties presented their respective positions as to how and where there were delays in processing the grievance. The worker outlined how the delay in processing matters ran from January onwards. The worker accepted that the mediation process began at the beginning of June 2021. The representatives outlined how the issue was progressed by the parties and although the worker expressed the opinion that the whole matter was unduly delayed, I am satisfied that the were two periods of delay that might have been avoided – the period from the receipt of the medical assessment on 12 February until clarifications were sought on March 9, and the period thereafter up to the 19 April when a meeting between the parties was arranged and took place. I am satisfied that there were circumstances which might explain away the other periods of apparent inactivity on the part of the employer. I am satisfied that the process may have been shortened by about two months had the correct procedures been followed and communications maintained with the worker. I am also satisfied that the employer was aware that the worker was absent from work on sick leave. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I recommend that the employer improve communications with any employee who is taking a grievance, providing updates on a regular scheduled basis while the grievance is being processed.
I recommend that the employer assign grievances to more that one contact person within the HR section to ensure that delays due to unavoidable absence is minimised.
I recommend that the employer document its communications with an employee taking a grievance and keep that record with the employee’s file.
I recommend that the employer update its grievance policy to reflect these changes.
I recommend that the employer pay the worker the sum of €2000 to reflect the avoidable delays he encountered in seeking a resolution of his grievance.
Dated: 28/09/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
IR dispute – grievance procedure – avoidable delay |