ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969

Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00001471

Parties:

	Worker	Employer
Anonymised Parties	A Worker	An Employer

Representatives

Self-Represented

In-House Employment Lawyer

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 - 00001471	21/06/2023

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eileen Campbell

Date of Hearing: 03/11/2023

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 in Lansdowne House. 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. They are referred to as “the Worker” and “the Employer”. The Worker attended the hearing and represented himself. The Employer was represented by an in-house employment lawyer. A team leader and two HR staff members attended on behalf of the Employer.

I explained to both parties at the outset the way the hearing would proceed, and I clarified for the parties the role of an Adjudication Officer in an Industrial Relations dispute. I clarified that it is a voluntary process and that no formal evidence is taken. I explained to the parties that I would be seeking information during the hearing in order to gain an understanding of the full extent of this dispute.

I have confirmed that the Worker herein is a Worker within the meaning of the Acts and I have conducted an investigation into the dispute as set out in section 13. It is noted section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969 empowers me to make a recommendation or recommendations to disputing parties on foot of any investigation so conducted. In making such recommendation/s I am obliged to set out my opinion on the merits of the dispute and the position taken by the parties thereto. Any consideration on the merits of the dispute will include an examination of the efforts made by the parties to exhaust any or all internal procedures or structures which ought to have been utilised prior to referring a dispute to the WRC. The role of the AO is to review the procedures followed by an employer and, having considered all of the information, to make a recommendation that is fair and reasonable and that will assist the parties in moving forward with the employment relationship.

Internal procedures had not been exhausted prior to the within referral and this would normally preclude an employee from obtaining an IR Recommendation from the WRC. However, in this case I am affording a degree of latitude and the Employer representative was positively disposed to this course of action. I note there has been a significant level of ongoing engagement on the part of the Employer with the Worker on a variety of matters throughout this year which I commend.

I can confirm I have fulfilled my obligation to make all relevant inquiries into this dispute.

Background:

This matter came before the WRC dated 21/06/2023 as a complaint seeking adjudication by the WRC under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

The Worker submitted a number of disputes concerning a wide range of workplace issues commencing with the narrative as set out in his initial WRC complaint form dated 21/06/2023 followed by a significant amount of supporting documentation on a variety of matters submitted up to 02/11/2023 which was the day before the hearing took place all of which broadened the scope of his original complaint significantly with the passage of time.

There was documentation submitted that was far outside of the scope of the Worker’s original dispute. The backdrop and catalyst to the dispute appeared to have its genesis in a number of complaints raised under employment rights legislation.

The Employer filed a written submission on 31/10/2023.

Summary of Workers Case:

As the hearing of the dispute commenced it became apparent that the crux of the Worker’s dispute since he first submitted his claim form has evolved into something quite different to that which was originally submitted.

The Worker’s dispute now relates to his withdrawal from the performance management process and the Worker’s reason for so doing.

Summary of Employer’s Case:

The Employer was responsive to facilitating the changing direction of the Worker’s dispute and engaging with the current dispute as canvassed at hearing. The Employer provided clarification to the Worker in terms of his interpretation and perception of matters referred to in an email he had obtained from the Employer in one of his subject data access requests as a result of which he had withdrawn from the performance management process.

Conclusions:

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

Having listened to both parties in this dispute it quickly became apparent that even though there was at the very least a gap of mutual understanding on certain matters, there was a commendable level of willingness to engage on both sides when the crux of the Worker’s dispute was revealed after some probing on my part. Attention was drawn to the relatively informal voluntary nature of the process and to my role in attempting to resolve a dispute and recommend a way forward that is fair and reasonable to both parties.

In the interests of fairness to the Worker and with the agreement of the Employer I facilitated the canvassing of a dispute by the Worker which was not in accordance with that which was set out in his original complaint form. The Employer was amenable to this approach and engaged wholeheartedly with the Worker on the matters raised to the extent that clarification was provided to the Worker on a concern he had which had caused him to withdraw from the performance management process.

I found the Worker’s withdrawal from the performance management process to be a regrettable situation for the Worker to be in. Based on my observations at hearing I note that the Worker is undoubtedly held in positive regard in his employment on the basis of the cordiality and respect shown by the Employer not to mention the willingness of the Employer to engage in seeking a resolution to a dispute of which they were not on proper notice.

Furthermore, the Employer perceives him to be a good worker and a strong contributor to his team. I am of the view the Worker would benefit from the validation received through participation in a comprehensive performance management process such as that which prevails in the Employer company. Accordingly, I welcome his commitment at hearing to re-engage in the process.

The Worker has stated he will now re-engage with the performance management process. There is no requirement for me to make a recommendation in this regard as both parties resolved the matter in dispute before the end of the hearing.

However, I recommend the Worker avail himself the Employer’s internal grievance procedure in the event there are any issues in the future he wishes to ventilate in regard to his work and his career in the Employer organisation.

For the avoidance of doubt, the approach I have taken in this matter is particular to the unique facts and circumstances of the within case and it cannot be quoted or used by any other party in any other case.

Recommendation:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

I recommend the Worker avail himself the Employer’s internal grievance procedure in the event there are any issues in the future he wishes to ventilate in regard to his work and his career in the Employer organisation.

Dated: 06/12/2023

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eileen Campbell

Key Words:

Performance management process; withdrawal from performance management process; internal procedures;