ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00001183
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Worker | An Employer |
Representatives | Jean O'Dowd, Unite the Union | In-house Representation |
Dispute:
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 - 00001183 | 23/03/2023 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Elizabeth Spelman
Date of Hearing: 09/08/2023
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.
The Hearing was conducted in person. The Worker was in attendance and accompanied by a colleague and her Union Representative. The Employer was also in attendance, with five employees in total.
As this is a trade dispute under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, the Hearing took place in private and the Parties are not named.
Background:
The Worker has been employed by the Employer since February 2014. She currently holds a management position. She earns approximately €46,800 per year and works approximately 37 hours per week. The Worker submitted her dispute to the Workplace Relations Commission (the “WRC”) on 23 March 2023. The Parties disagreed as to whether the internal procedures at the Worker’s workplace had been exhausted before the dispute was submitted to the WRC. |
Summary of Worker’s Case:
The Worker outlined her belief that the internal procedures had been exhausted. Her Union Representative outlined that the Worker had engaged in a lengthy process to resolve this matter and that while the word “formal” had not been used in her correspondence, the Worker believed that she had engaged and exhausted the formal procedure. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Employer outlined that the formal procedure had not been exhausted. The Employer referred to emails dated 8 and 20 September 2022 which indicated that if the Worker was dissatisfied, she could raise a “Formal Grievance”. The Employer outlined that it had also offered the use of an external dispute resolution service in November 2022. Finally, the Employer outlined a conversation with the Worker’s Union Representative in December 2022 during which the appeals process was referred to. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the Parties.
It is well established that, before submitting a grievance about any matter to the WRC, an employee must exhaust the internal procedures at their workplace. In Gregory Geoghegan t/a TAPS v. A Worker, INT1014, the Labour Court held:
“The Court is not prepared to insert itself into the procedural process in a situation where the dispute procedures have been bypassed.”
During the Hearing, it was noted that the Parties agreed that the appeals process can be commenced. As the internal procedures have not been exhausted, I cannot insert myself into the procedural process. In the circumstances, the Worker’s dispute is not well founded. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
As the internal procedures have not been exhausted, I cannot insert myself into the procedural process. In the circumstances, the Worker’s dispute is not well founded.
Dated: 11th August 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Elizabeth Spelman
Key Words:
Industrial Relations Act, section 13; Internal procedures. |