Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

General Operative

Factory

Representatives

Ms. ÁIne Feeney, SIPTU

Ms. Aleksandra Tiilikainen, IBEC

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 - 00001174

18/03/2023

On 18th March 2023, the Worker referred the present despite to the Commission. Following the Employer’s failure to object to the same in accordance with the procedure set out in the legislation, the matter proceeded to hearing.

Said hearing was convened for, and finalised on, 2nd October 2023. This hearing conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced by either side during the hearing.

Prior to the hearing, the Worker submitted that the Employer had failed to investigate a grievance raised by him. By response, the Employer submitted that they did not pursue the grievance in accordance with the procedure set out in the company handbook.

Both parties read their submissions into the record at the outset of the hearing. These were then expanded upon in oral agreement and contested by the opposing side.

No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the dispute were raised at any stage of the proceedings.

The Worker submitted that following the discovery of an issue regarding his rate of pay, he raised the issue informally with his line manager. When he received no adequate response in this regard, he put the grievance into writing and placed the Respondent on formal notice of the same. When no response was received in relation to this issue, the Worker corresponded directly with the Employer’s HR function, advising that he wished to move to stage three of their internal procedure. By response, the Employer’s HR Manager advised that he could not become involved in the grievance process until such a time as the line manager had issued a decision and the same was appealed.

By submission, the Worker stated that contrary to the position adopted by the Employer’s, he raised a grievance in writing with his line manager in accordance with the process set out in the employee handbook. In circumstances whereby the line manager failed to investigate or issue any form of decision in relation to the same, he was obliged to escalate the matter. Following the same, the HR Manager failed to investigate the grievance and essentially ignored the issue. In this respect, the Worker submitted that the Employer had sought to frustrate the investigation of his grievance at each opportunity.

By response, the Employer submitted that their internal grievance procedures mandate that a complaint must firstly be raised informally with the relevant line manager. In the event that the employee is dissatisfied with the outcome in this regard, they may then raise the matter in writing and be invited to a formal meeting in this regard. If the Worker remains dissatisfied with the outcome of this process, they may raise the issue to HR in accordance with stage three of the process.

Regarding the present dispute, the Employer submitted that on 21st February 2023, they received the Worker’s correspondence seeking to invoke stage three of the grievance procedure. At this point they had no record of any other part of the procedure being completed and were unaware of the substance of the grievance. In this regard, the Employer’s HR Manager requested that the Worker raise the issue in accordance with section 2, and appeal the same in the event that he is dissatisfied in relation to the same. Thereafter, the Worker failed to comply with this request, electing to refer the present dispute instead.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

The present matter involves a dispute as to the Worker’s compliance with the Employer’s grievance procedures. The essence of this dispute is that the Worker submitted that he issued a written letter of grievance to his line manager on 28th October 2022, to which he did not get a response. In this regard, the Worker submitted that he complied with stage 2 of the Employer’s internal grievance procedures. Following the Employer’s failure to acknowledge or investigate his grievance at this stage, he sought to escalate the matter to stage 3 of the policy.

Regarding this portion of the dispute, I note that the Worker went to the effort of registering this correspondence and provide proof of delivery of the same in advance of the hearing. In such circumstances, it is apparent that the Employer failed to acknowledge the correspondence or issue any form of substantive response to the same.

Thereafter, in the absence of any response to his earlier correspondence, the Worker sought to escalate the matter in accordance with the Employer’s internal procedures. At this juncture, the Worker was informed that the HR Manager could only investigate such grievances on appeal from the line manager. Having regard to the same, the Worker was asked he was asked to correspondence with his line manager in that regard. Naturally, this response aggravated the Worker in circumstances whereby he had already issued such correspondence and received no response.

Having regard to foregoing, I find in favour of the Worker in relation to this dispute. Regarding redress, I recommend that the Employer pay the Worker the sum of €1,000 in respect of entirely avoidable delays arising from this process. In addition to the same, I recommend that a meeting under stage two of the policy be convened within two weeks of the date below, should the Worker wish to maintain his initial grievance.

Grievance, Delay, Registered Post