Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Community Training Centre

Representatives

Peter Glynn of SIPTU

Louise Mackey of IACTO

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 - 00001543

14/07/2023

The Worker worked with the Employer as a tutor for approximately 10 years.

In April 2022 there was an incident where a colleague was verbally abusive to her in a staff meeting.

The Employer disciplined that Worker immediately following the incident.

The Worker instigated grievances following this. She submits that that these were not investigated and her relationship with the Employer and her colleagues deteriorated. She went on sick leave and ultimately resigned.

The Worker’s Union provided detailed written submissions.

While there was an extensive background to this dispute, ultimately their focus is on a grievance submitted in April 2023.

Despite this document being clearly flagged as a grievance the Employer did not move to investigate it. When the Employer and Worker finally met to consider the grievance in June 2023 it was revealed that an investigation had been undertaken without the Worker’s input.  They then tried to discuss the Worker’s return to work rather than try and resolve her grievances. The Worker remained on sick leave until she resigned in September.

The Employer provided detailed written submissions.

They dispute the Workers version of events. Two board members were assigned to look into the Worker’s concerns. They tried to meet with the Worker in order to clarify what policy her letter of April 2023 was submitted under. These attempts were unsuccessful. While this was occouring they sought statements from the other staff. The Worker resigned before giving the Employer a chance to deal with her concerns. 

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

The Worker clearly submitted a grievance in April 2023. Instead of moving to investigate the matter the board sought to meet with the Worker. For a variety of reasons this meeting failed to materialise. There is nothing wrong with an Employer seeking to have a preliminary meeting with a Worker ahead of a grievance process progressing. Or in them seeking to further clarify her grievance before it was referred for investigation.

However, that is not all the board did. They appear to have interviewed the Workers colleagues on these matter and seem to have formed a view on them without conducting any sort of fair grievance investigation. When this became apparent the Worker’s Union rightly challenged that course of action.

The Worker’s Union has pointed to a number of decisions from the Labour Court relating to the need to have a fair investigation in HR procedures.

In particular I note the following from SI 146 of 2000

“Procedures are necessary to ensure both that while discipline is maintained in the workplace by applying disciplinary measures in a fair and consistent manner, grievances are handled in accordance with the principles of natural justice and fairness. Apart from considerations of equity and natural justice, the maintenance of a good industrial relations atmosphere in the workplace requires that acceptable fair procedures are in place and observed.”

I think the Employers actions breached that obligation. A view was clearly being formed on matters without the input of the Worker.

Accordingly, I recommend that the Employer pays the Worker compensation in the amount of €3500 in full and final settlement of this dispute.