Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A worker

An employer

Representatives

Darren Murphy Neville Murphy McGarry Solicitors

Keith Irvine Local Government Management Agency (LGMA)

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-00057382

02/12/2020

The Complainant is employed by the Respondent as a Staff Officer. Employment commenced in 2000.

This complaint submitted under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 2nd December 2020.

In all complaints submitted under this legislation the Complainant is referred to as a Worker and the Respondent is referred to as the Employer.

On 4th November 2019 the Worker took a grievance against two senior members of management in his department. The grievance related to an application for funding for the Worker to attend an external training course he believed was relevant to the job he was doing at the time. The course in question formed part of the PMDS training requirements and had been signed off by the Workers line manager for several years but was never activated. The Worker points to the fact that one of the managers he had his grievance with had signed approval for this training course.

The grievance procedure was utilised with the involvement of the Human Resources Department. The Worker is not happy with the handling of his grievance and believes those involved only looked at the process and did not look at the actual grievance. The worker also points out that the staff involved in the grievance handling process were subordinate to the two managers who were the subject of the grievance, and it very quickly became apparent that the Worker was not going to obtain a transparent and fair outcome.

The Worker offered substantial documentation to support his assertion that the determination of the initial grievance was not conducted correctly he was informed by HR that only the process was examined during the appeal and that it (the process) was found to be correct. At this point it became apparent to the Worker that there was no clear meaningful process for the assessment of his appeal against the determination of his appeal.

The Worker wrote to HR on 27TH August 2020 stating he was willing to sit down and mediate on the matter he received a response on 31st August 2020 from HR stating that he could refer the matter to the Workplace Relations Commission.

In his own words the Worker states:

“Due to being refused a course of study which was clearly of benefit to me in my role and the organisation as a whole and after this very gruelling grievance case and in particular when I discovered the full content of the transcripts on individuals interviewed therein, I was advised by my doctor to take some time out on stress leave during June and July 2020. I would point out that only when I received the original report dated 6th April 2020 from HR by email did I realise that Appendices 4, 5 and 6 were omitted. This was a deliberate attempt to avoid me seeing the extraordinary contradictions that the interview transcripts contained and also the untruths and lies which were contained therein. The documents were forwarded to me with an explanation that this was an unfortunate error on the part of HR. I found this hard to believe that the most damming part of the report against me had been omitted in error.

Having taken this Grievance against Senior Management they chose without any discussion with me to remove a core element of my role (events). I only became aware of this major change when by accident one of my team returned from a Seniors meeting (to which I was not invited) who informed me that the events part of our section of which I was in charge being taken away from us and looked after by another area.  Again, this clearly indicated to me that Senior Management were determined to ensure I didn’t advance in my career in the organisation in the area at which I excelled (events) by my initiative to undertake a course of study that would benefit this organisation as a whole, and also close off channels of possibility of me being involved with internal and external events in this organisation moving forward. This change only occurred after I took the grievance case …………”

Conclusion.

“The Employer organisation have made my working life extremely difficult and stressful since I took my initial case to the WRC/Labour Court in 2017 and even more so since this grievance case in 2019 and 2020.  This internal grievance case is flawed as it only examines the process and also in this case has involved designated  staff from within the organisation who were of the same or lower grade than those against whom the case was against.  Therefore, I was never going to receive a fair and unbiased outcome.  There were so many anomalies and untruths in the interview transcripts from parties interviewed, which were deliberately withheld from me by HR until I requested them, has led me to firmly believe that the grievance policy framework needs to be examined in its entirety as it is unfit for purpose.  The findings of this grievance case is clearly part of the overall approach by management to victimise and penalise me as an employee for invoking my rights for taking an earlier case to the WRC under the aforementioned Act………”.

·       In 2019 the worker submitted a Training Course Application Form which was declined. The worker subsequently appealed this decision, however the appeal again declined approval for the Course.

·       The worker subsequently submitted a grievance complaint in November 2019 under the employer’s Grievance Policy. Following a thorough examination of the grievance complaint it was not upheld. The worker appealed the grievance decision, but the Appeal did not find in favour of the worker. The worker subsequently submitted a complaint to the WRC under the Industrial Relations Act.

·       The employer would assert that in relation to the WRC Complaint this is only in relation to the worker’s Training Application being refused and subsequent grievance in relation to same (per the WRC Complaint Form).

·       On page three of the Training Application Form it is stated clearly that “The Course must be relevant to the XXXXXXX Sector.” It also states “Approval for assistance is subject to funding being available. No approval for acceptance on to the Scheme shall be deemed to be given until official notification has been received in writing from the Human Resource Department.”

·       It is further stated that “Any member of staff applying for a course before they are notified of the employer’s decision in relation to the Scheme does so on the understanding that there is no obligation on the part of XXXXXXXX to provide financial assistance.”

·       The Employer seek to support and encourage employees in relation to training and development however the XXXXXXXX are restricted by financial budgets and resources and prioritise essential mandatory training such as Health and Safety, followed by training that is assessed as relevant and beneficial to employees’ posts and the employer’s services followed by other courses where the employer approves them.

·       It is regularly the case that the employer while encouraging employees to identify courses they would seek to undertake, to refuse approval of those courses once fully assessed with all other Courses for the upcoming year. In the worker’s case the Course applied for was rejected similar to other courses. The claimant appealed this decision and then submitted a grievance, followed by an appeal of that decision providing him with his full rights and entitlements under the employer’s policy. However, it remains the right of the employer to decide which courses it approves and there is no absolute right on an employee in relation to approval of training course funding requests.

·       This was also found to be the case in relation to the worker’s grievance where it was determined that there had been no undermining of the claimant’s role through the refusal of the course.

·       The worker has made a connection between the refusal to grant his course application with his previous Labour Court case. There is no correlation or connection between the two and the worker refuses to accept that it is simply the case that the employer did not believe the Course was relevant, necessary or a priority in relation to the worker and his role within the employer organisation.

·       It is unclear from the worker’s complaint what he is seeking to achieve from the WRC Adjudication Service in relation to his complaint where he has been provided with his rights under the legislation and the employer’s grievance policy and where there has been no finding in his favour in relation to his grievance and where no evidence has been provided to substantiate his claims linking any decisions to a previous Labour Court Case.

·       In the worker’s complaint form under the Industrial Relations Act there is also a reference to the worker taking Umbridge at being relocated as part of his role. This is a normal and regular occurrence for staff and in accordance with the worker’s contract of employment Duties & Place of Work:” you may be required to work at various locations…….”

·       Additionally, the employer would note that no grievance has previously been submitted by the worker in relation to his placement or relocation. In relation to this point the employer would assert that the worker’s Contract of Employment contains a clause that he may be required to work at various locations.

Conclusion.

The employer would then ask the Adjudicator to dismiss the complaint under the Industrial Relations Act where the worker’s grievance was fairly considered under its grievance policy and where there is no automatic right to workers of the employer having their training course requests approved or funded.

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

The employer has a comprehensive Grievance Policy and Procedures Document.

This Policy at Section 13 reads as follows:

13.1. If the employee is dissatisfied with the determination, the employee may appeal the determination, in writing, to the next management level / or in certain circumstances to the HR Officer, within 10 working days, stating the grounds for the appeal.

13.2. The appeals process will involve a review of the process that was undertaken to deal with the grievance and will provide a determination of the issue. The appeals process will not normally involve a new investigation.

13.3. Should the employee remain dissatisfied with the internal determination the employee may refer the matter to the Workplace Relations Commission. Any such referral shall not suspend or defer any action the employer may be required to implement following the internal determination of the grievance.

13.4. An employee may seek to be accompanied by a work colleague or represented by a recognised Trade Union representative at any stage of the procedure.

This is one of the most comprehensive Grievance Procedures I have ever come across and certainly meets the standard contained within S.I. 146 of 2000 - Industrial Relations Act, 1990 (Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures) (Declaration) Oder, 2000.

In her examination of all aspects of the issues raised by the worker the examination officer has reached a conclusion. In reaching this conclusion the following steps were taken:

1.       Review complaint and supporting documentation fully.

2.       Review related schemes referred to, as it relates to the complaint

3.       Conduct a series of interviews to gather evidence and clarify queries

4.       All meeting notes were confirmed as an accurate reflection of the discussions.

The conclusion reached by the examiner was that there was no evidence to uphold the grievance.

It would appear to me that a significant contributor to the issues mentioned lay in the area of the description of what the workers job description actually was. The worker believed (rightly or wrongly) that a significant portion of his job lay in the area of events.

During the interview with the Director the examiner asked him was he aware that the Worker felt that part of his role lay in marketing to which he replied that was the worker’s own interpretation of the role and was not the case.

I believe these two statements go to the heart of the problem. The worker felt that his job was one thing and this was not the view of management. This is something management should consider moving forward.

Overall, I believe the grievance as outlined by the worker was investigated and having read through all documentation, I am not in a position to reject the findings of the examiner and that is there is no evidence to uphold the grievance. I’m satisfied that procedurally the proper steps in line with the employer’s grievance procedure were taken.

I am unable to make any recommendation in favour of the worker.

Industrial Relations Act, 1969