Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Lab Technician

   A Medium Sized Enterprise

Representatives

Barnaba Dorda SIPTU Advocate

Sophie Crosbie , IBEC Regional Manager

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00036003-001

05/05/2020

On May 5, 2020, SIPTU submitted a request for investigation of a dispute surrounding the circumstances of the notification of a work-based product concern. The claim also referred to a negative  staff relations interaction which followed on site. These circumstances were investigated. The Worker was not satisfied with the outcome and is seeking compensation for ill health and stress under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

The case came to hearing on foot of a number of postponements on 9 December 2022.

Both Parties were represented at hearing and submitted comprehensive written submissions. The Worker was represented by his Trade Union, SIPTU and the Employer by IBEC.

The Worker in this case has worked on a full-time basis with the Medium sized Enterprise since May 1, 2000. During this time, he has expanded his skill set and currently works as a Laboratory Technician. The Union describes a respectful work environment for the Worker until late Summer, 2019.

It is the Union case, that from this time, the Worker has been the subject of a chain of events in the workplace which has cast him in an incorrect light. The Worker has attempted to address his dissatisfaction through the Company procedures but remains dissatisfied.

Issues of concern for the Worker centred on:

1 Being alerted to an investigation to a work-based product issue through an email which was read by a locum co-worker in July 2019 (this matter is currently being addressed at a separate third party)

1A. The Worker acknowledged at hearing that he was informed that he had no case to answer in relation to the overarching investigation.

2 The investigative process surrounding a staff relations complaint raised by his then Manager. He believed that he was mis cast and exposed to procedural unfairness in this complaint and has endured a fear of recurrence.

2 A the Worker acknowledged at hearing that the process was fragmented and subject to appeal, he has a clean disciplinary record in this matter.

3 The Worker has perceived a lack of procedural fairness in how his counter complaint was addressed by the Employer and has endured a high level of demoralisation and detachment from work. The Worker has described a level of trauma which has caused him to feel vulnerable in the workplace.

3A The Union based the request for an external investigation on the company grievance procedure.

The Union described the pathway surrounding the activation of a number of concerns by the Employer and the Employee and emphasised that the Worker does not have a disciplinary record but is apprehensive on the topic of Managers investigating Managers   within the Company.

 The Union contended that the only viable way forward to address the Workers stated concerns was to appoint an external Investigator to the entire contents of the Workers grievances dated between 4 October 2019 and 21 February 2020. However, the Employer refused to entertain this proposal and the Worker referred his case to the WRC. The Worker did not participate in the Company led management of his grievance, undertaken by Company Personnel.

Proposals to engage in mediation were not accepted by the Worker.

The Union submitted that the Worker had taken an extended sick leave during the events outlined at hearing and was actively managing a shared medical condition.

The Employer has operated a medium sized manufacturing plant for 75 years. It relies heavily on the availability of long serving and skilled staff, who live in the locality.

The Employer presented their desire to adopt a solution focussed approach to the hearing in the case. The Employer representative gave an overview of the Employers concerns for the Worker and the protective measures adopted since 2020. The Employer outlined the course of events as reflected by the Worker earlier The Employer described a frail employment relationship, which they believed could be remedied if the worker decided to engage in mediation. They shared their concerns on the Workers sensitivity when help or assistance is offered while he appears  to carry a high level of residual anger. The Employer is completely opposed to paying compensation in this case.

1 The Employer outlined the evolution of concern regarding a work-based product, which resolved on the intervention of the site lead.

1 A It was the Employer stated position that this matter had now closed.

2 The Employer outlined the circumstances and procedural pathways surrounding a staff relations issue between the Worker and his then Manager in 2019, which had now closed.

2 A The Employer reflected that the Worker availed of an extended sick leave at this time.

3 The Employer contended that they had handled the Workers subsequent grievances reasonably and fairly within the parameters of the Company grievance procedure (currently under review)  

3A The Worker did not participate, and the grievance was not upheld

The Employer argued that the Company wide Investigative process was conducted robustly and was not appealed.

The Employer contended that the current case before the WRC was premature as the Company had not been provided with an opportunity to exhaust local procedures.

My obligation in this case is to hold an investigation of the Dispute and if I find merit in the case, to make a Recommendation to the Parties

In conducting my investigation, I have listened to and considered all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

In this case, I found Parties who in my opinion had a lot in common. Both Parties wished for a resolution in this long running dispute. Both Parties honestly believed that they had tried everything to make that resolution possible and yes, both Parties came to hearing slightly confused on just how matters have come to this.

Mediation , is as both Parties acknowledged is a voluntary process and it takes a joint consent to progress into that world . Joint consent has not existed to date here .

For my part, I found a Worker who did not have the benefit of adequate conflict resolution tools at the workplace. I was forthright in my direction to both the Union and the Management to prioritise an urgent revamp of the Company grievance procedure. Both Parties took this direction on board.

However, I also found that the Union introduced me to a Worker who had a difficulty accepting a procedural closure, in spite of black letter wording of that closure. This position borne from a genuine fear for his personal health and safety is causing him to stagnate and become very apprehensive  to the challenge of moving on in this case.

I have heard the Parties on their positions regarding a fresh investigation in this case.

For my part, I note that the Parties have been engaged in a “rear view window “analysis of workplace events since July 2019 without real progress or “peace of mind “.

Since that date, we have all been lucky enough to survive a National Pandemic.

 I am concerned that the emphasis that should have been placed on closed events has not been realised in full by the Worker.

 I cannot agree that the optimal way forward in this case should be centred on more retrospective analysis as it appears to me to be stymying progress. It can be tempting to believe that an independent investigator will put their finger on something nobody else has commented on to date. However, there is also a likelihood that they may linger on further omissions of both parties.  I have some concerns on what fuelled or gave legitimate expectation for the request for external investigation as no provision for same existed in the Grievance Procedure.

What has emerged in this case for me, at least, is a high level of hurt expressed by the Worker and a high level of genuine concern from the Employer that everything that could be done, was done fairly and in the best interests of the entire staff. An impasse has been reached in that regard.

I canvassed both Parties at hearing on how they envisaged a resolution in the case. I expressed my particular concern that the employment was a live employment and if possible, could the Parties identify a mutually agreeable pathway for the way forward.?

I am grateful to the Parties for their participation in that discussion.

I have read all the documents once more post hearing and I can confirm that I have found merit in the dispute.

Staff Relations Issue