Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Supervisor

A Transport Company

Representatives

Lorna Madden BL instructed by   Katherina White Solicitors

 Self-Represented

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 - 00000264

12/05/2022

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

IR - SC - 00000283

20/05/2022

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

IR - SC - 00000284

20/05/2022

Submissions, both oral and written were made on behalf of both parties. The Worker, at his request, also spoke on his own behalf.

The Worker has worked for the Employer since 2006.

The Worker submits that his job was changed without consultation. He submits that he was treated differently to other workers who were in the same role as him, prior to changes introduced. The Worker believes that his role should be reinstated so far as it is possible. He submits that he has fewer duties than he previously had and is not receiving relevant information, he would previously had received. The Worker submits that he has been isolated, specifically, that he has been physically isolated by being moved to a separate office due to Covid-19 protocols and never returned to his former office.   

The Worker submits that the Employer has failed to deal with the Worker’s grievances and/or complaints in relation to the two previous issues. The Worker raised a grievance in February 2021 and he submits that it has still not been dealt with in any meaningful way, and that this represents an extraordinary delay on behalf of the Employer, and that both the issues he has raised and the delay in addressing them have significantly negatively impacted him.

The Worker is seeking the processing of his grievances/complaints he first raised in 2021, which he submits the Employer has not progressed.

The Employer denies any delay in processing the Worker’s grievance, citing engagement with an WRC Advisory service review which it did not wish to prejudice, the Covid-19 pandemic, an extended period of sick leave by the Worker, a change of representation by the Worker requiring clarification, and ultimately, the withdrawal from the process by the Worker.

The Employer has offered an explanation in relation to the change in the Worker’s role pertaining to “the Agreement” which produced agreed re-structuring within the Employer (in consultation with the unions), affecting the Worker’s previously held role.

The Employer further  denies that the Worker has been isolated, and, instead, cites the engagement with the WRC Advisory service, and changes made within the local workplace (the location where the Complainant works) on foot of that engagement, in a bid to improve employee relations between local management and staff, and the atmosphere in the local work environment as a whole.

1.      This matter comes before the WRC pursuant to section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. These submissions set out the factual background and summarise the Worker’s position in relation to the matters before the WRC.

2.      There are three main issues which the Worker wishes to be addressed.

1)     The first is that the Worker’s job has been changed without consultation with him. Although this change occurred nearly three years ago, the Worker’s job, which is substantially different from the role he previously carried out, is still unclear and undefined. The reason the Worker was selected for his current job, as opposed to the three other foremen who worked with him, was also never explained.

The Worker believes that his role should be reinstated so far as it is possible.

2)     The second issue is in relation to the removal of the Worker into a separate office. This was initially due to Covid-19 protocols but the Worker has never returned to his former office. The reason for this permanent move was never explained to the Worker, but in a meeting held in September of this year he was told that allegations of bullying were made against him. The Worker was never informed of this, and these allegations were never investigated. If the Worker had been informed of these allegations he would have refuted them. In his current role, the Worker works in a separate office and is completely isolated from other workers, and this would appear to be by the design of the Employer. This has had a detrimental effect on him, which he has raised with the Employer on several occasions.  

3)     The third and final issue is that the Employer has failed to deal with the Worker’s grievances and/or complaints in relation to the two previous issues. The Worker raised a grievance in February 2021 and it has still not been dealt with in any meaningful way whatsoever. The extraordinary delay on behalf of the Employer has caused significant frustration for the Worker and has compounded the issues set out above. The Worker wishes to continue working with the Employer but he requires the Employer to deal with his workplace issues.

Factual Background

3.     The Worker commenced employment with the Employer on or about the 18th August 2006. The Worker has had a successful career with the Employer and continues to work there. 

4.     There were extensive workplace and IR issues at the Employer company in 2018. Of relevance is that allegations of bullying and harassment against the foremen working in the Employer Company were made in 2018. As a result, an Advisory Service review was carried out by the WRC at the requested of the company in 2018.  Following this a working group was put in place in 2019 to discuss the workplace issues and culture within the company. Mr. L, one of the foremen attended on behalf of the other foremen. [Copy of Report and Contemporaneous Correspondence submitted (2018/2019)]

5.     In January 2020, the Worker’s role was that of Dock Foreman. There was a change in the structure of the Employer Company in 2020, which was the result of extensive negotiations throughout 2018 and 2019, and which resulted in “the Agreement.” As part of this change, all foreman roles were changed to the role of Supervisor although the duties of the roles were very similar. In the location where the Worker is based, where there were three foremen roles, there would only be two supervisor roles.

6.     In January 2020, the Worker along with the other foremen met with Ms. M. and were presented with draft roles, which did not appear to be part of “the Agreement.” The Worker and the other three foremen working in his location rejected these roles.

7.     In early January 2020, the Worker was moved to the role of Maintenance Supervisor. This role was part of “the Agreement” and went into force in January 2020 as per the agreement.  There was more formal communication from the Employer about the change of the role or duties or title.

8.     In or around the 26th February, the Worker was told by his fellow foremen that there was a WRC meeting and as a result of which the Worker would be moving offices.  The Worker was also told by his fellow foreman that this was a ‘punishment’.

9.     The Worker’s role as Maintenance Supervisor was and continues to be unclear and has resulted in the Worker working alone in an office and with little to do. The other foremen continued to perform largely the same duties, but in the role of supervisors.

10.  On the 19th March 2020, Ms. M. entered the office where the Worker and the other foremen worked. Ms M. informed the Worker that he was being moved to a different space due to Covid-19 requirements. The Worker had just returned to work from holidays. The space he was moved to was previously used as a sub canteen. The other foremen were not asked to move and the Worker was not told why he was selected. This move resulted in the Worker performing this role in a separate office on his own, isolated from the floor and the other Supervisors. Despite Covid-19 restrictions ending the Worker has not been moved back into the main office and the Worker instead was given a new permanent office in November 2020 to work in on his own.

11.  The Worker was uncertain of his duties within his new role. Previously, there had been ongoing issues with improperly filled dock sheets and there had been a lot of correspondence between the foremen and management as to the proper procedure if dock sheets were not properly completed as this can have safety implications. This was an important issue as incomplete or improper dock sheets could lead to disciplinary action. [Copy of Correspondence Re: Dock Sheets 2019 submitted] The Worker’s job as dock foreman included raising issues where incomplete dock sheets were returned to him. In his new role, the Worker was uncertain how he should follow up with incomplete forms. On the 7th April 2020 he emailed Mr. H. asking whether he should continue to raise the issue of improperly filled dock sheets with Acting Supervisors. [Copy of Correspondence submitted - dated 7th April 2020]

12.  In his new role, the Worker was being excluded from emails which all other Supervisors were included on. For example, on the 14th December 2020 an email was sent in relation to wheel incidents to all other supervisors and acting supervisors. [Copy of correspondence from Mr. H. Re Wheel Incidents submitted - dated 14th December 2020]

13.  On the 24th February 2021 the Worker first raised a complaint with the relevant Regional HR Delivery Manager, Ms. C. Via email, the Worker informed her that he would like to raise a complaint and gave the following reasons:

“1. I feel my role, responsibilities and status over the past year has been systematically eroded and undermined. Since my role as Dock Foreman was changed by [the Employer], I do not have the same roles and responsibilities as other supervisors and my role and interaction within the [workplace] has been downgraded to the point where neither I or my role have reporting responsibilities or status. This impacts my ability to do my existing work and I have requested support repeatedly to address this.

2. I feel I have been socially excluded and have been repeatedly targeted for negative treatment including exclusion from relevant emails and communications to other supervisors.”

14. In the same email, the Worker indicated that he had raised issues previously with his line manager which had not been addressed and that this had not given him confidence that his complaint would be dealt with in a timely manner. [Copy of Correspondence from the Worker to Ms. C. submitted - dated 24th February 2021]

15. The Worker was asked to expand and clarify his complaint and on the 3rd March 2021, the he submitted a five page complaint by email to Ms. C. In this document, the Worker makes it clear that he feels his role has been eroded and undermined and that he has been excluded from the workplace. [Copy of Complaint submitted - dated 3rd March 2021]

16. On the 12th March 2021, the Worker received an email from Ms. C. apologising for the delay in reverting to him and indicating that she would contact him on the 15th March to arrange a meeting. On the 23rd March, the Worker contacted Ms. C. to ask if it was possible to set up this meeting soon. The meeting was set up for the 24th March. [Copy of Correspondences between the Worker and Ms. C. submitted - March 2021]

17. Following this meeting, the Worker was emailed by Ms. C. on the 31st March and asked to identify whether his complaint was a grievance or a bullying and harassment complaint. There was some back and forth throughout April about the nature of the complaint, with the Employer company delaying in its correspondence again. On the 10th May 2021, the Worker emailed Ms. C. asking for his complaint to be addressed and seeking to change his complaint from a bullying and harassment complaint to a grievance. [Copy of Correspondence between the Worker and Ms. C. submitted - April – May 2021]

18. On the 24th May 2021, the Worker was contacted by phone and told that his grievance would be mediated by the Employer company by a third party. The Worker was agreeable to this, however no mediation ever took place.

19. In or around October/November 2021, the position of Maintenance Manager became available and the Worker applied for this position. Mr. T., Mr. H. and Ms. C. were on the interview panel and the Worker felt compromised as his complaint was still unresolved. He was unsuccessful in his application.

20. As a result of the Maintenance Manager position being filled, a Supervisor role within the Employer company became available. This role would have allowed the Worker to move back into the main workspace and continue to do work similar to the work he performed before being moved to a separate office. This role was the same level as the Worker’s role and would have been a lateral transfer. By email dated the 4th November the Worker asked to be transferred to this role as the isolation of his current role was negatively impacting on him. On the 17th November 2021, the Worker asked that he be transferred into the role and that his position be advertised instead. The Worker also indicated that his grievance still had not been addressed. [Copy of Correspondence from the Worker to Mr. H. submitted - dated 4th November 2021; Copy of Correspondence from the Worker to Mr. F. submitted - dated 17th November 2021]

21. On the 13th December 2021, the Worker received a response from Mr. F. (Head of Employee Relations) stating that the Employer was following policy and could not allow the Worker to transfer into the position. The Worker would have to interview for the position, but as the interview panel would be the same, he was unwilling to do this. In relation to the Worker’s grievance, the email also stated, “I would be happy for management to have a discussion with you in relation to your current role. I would propose this occurs in the coming weeks and, if any residual issues remain, I am happy to engage with your union representative further on the means to resolve same.” Despite this, the Worker did not hear any further from the Employer on addressing his complaint. [Copy of Correspondence from Mr. F. to the Worker submitted - dated 13th December 2021]

22. The Worker continued to raise issues with his workplace, including the placement of his locker away from other staff, and the presence of mice in his workspace. In his communications he continued to highlight that he was not happy and felt segregated from other staff members. [Copy of Correspondences from the Worker to Mr. O. submitted – dated February - March 2022]

23. The Worker also continued to raise issues with the difficulties he was having performing his role. The Worker found that his role and his duties were unclear. He also had difficulties as he was being excluded from relevant information. [Copy of Correspondences from the Worker to Mr. O. submitted - November - February 2022]

24. The Worker and his Union Representative continued to follow up on the complaint. On the 29th April 2022, an email was sent on behalf of the Worker asking the Employer company to engage with the issue. [Copy of Correspondence from the Complainant’s union representative to Mr. F. submitted - dated 29th April 2022]

25. On the 16th May 2022, the Worker emailed the Employer company seeking to proceed with a resolution to his complaint. The Worker asked that the matter be mediated as suggested by the Employer in May 2021. [Copy of Correspondence from the Worker to Mr. F. submitted - dated 16th May 2022]

26. On the 20th May 2022, the Worker submitted his complaint to the WRC.

27. In late September 2022 the Worker met with Mr. T. and Mr. H. to attempt to resolve the issues. During this meeting the Worker was told that his name had been repeatedly mentioned in the meeting in 2020 when issues of bullying by the foremen were raised and that this was the reason for his sideways move into an isolated room, despite no investigation ever taking place into these investigations and the Worker never being informed. During the meeting, the Worker was also informed that the workplace had improved in the last two years due to the Worker not being in a position to ‘target anyone’. 

28. In light of these revelations, the Worker ceased his discussions with the Employer. The Worker decided to proceed with his complaint in the WRC as he has lost all confidence in the process. [Copy of Correspondences from the Worker to Mr. T. submitted - September - October 2022]

Legal Position in relation to Delay 

29. The Employer has delayed significantly in dealing with the Worker’s grievance and has still not responded to it in any meaningful way. This is despite ample time and opportunity to do so and a continuing willingness on behalf of the Worker to engage with the Employer. The Worker has provided sufficient information in relation to his grievance and there were no meaningful steps taken to resolve, or even examine, his complaints. The Worker first submitted his grievance on the 24th February 2021 and then a further full grievance on the 3rd March 2021, at the request of the Employer.

30. The Employer’s grievance procedure provides for 4 stages, Stages A - D. It provides that Stages A – C shall be completed within 12 working days. Stage C provides that if an issue cannot be resolved by an employee’s local manager then it can be referred to senior management and an oral hearing take place within 5 working days and a decision given 4 working days thereafter. Stage D provides that the grievance may be referred to an agreed third party. It is nearly two years since the Worker made his complaint and he has only had one meeting with management, in September 2022. [Copy of extract re: Grievance Procedure submitted.]

31. InA Paramedic v A Healthcare Provider, ADJ-00000314, the Adjudication Officer accepted that a grievance procedure which took seven months represented, “by any standard, an undue delay on the part of the Respondent in dealing with these matters, that was in breach of the timelines laid down in the Respondent’s own Grievance Procedure, that was unreasonable and unfair to the Complainant and caused her stress, and I accept that the Complainant is entitled to compensation in that respect.” It was recommended that the Respondent pay the Complainant compensation in the sum of €2,500 for the undue delay by them in dealing with the matters.

32. In IBM Ireland v A Worker, LCR21019, the Labour Court found that there was an inordinate and unjustified delay in addressing the grievance raised by the Claimant through the internal grievance procedure. In the Court’s opinion, the Claimant’s sense of grievance at what occurred could have been addressed, and possibly assuaged, had the internal procedures been operated within a reasonable timeframe. The Court concluded that the Company failed to deal with the Claimant’s grievance with the promptness that could reasonably have been expected and recommended the Company pay the Claimant compensation in the amount of €2,000 for the effects of this shortcoming.

33. In this matter the Worker’s grievance relates to his every day work. He is seeking clarity about his role which he has to perform every day and he has continually advised the Employer that he feels isolated. He does not know why this has occurred. The Worker needs the support of his Employer. The Worker feels that the grievance procedure is ineffective and that the Employer does not want to hear or deal with his concerns. Due to this, the Worker has suffered additional stress and frustration. Although the Employer’s actions led to the Worker being in this position in the first place, the repeated and deliberate delay to deal with the situation has caused just as much upset and frustration for the Worker. It is submitted that the Employer’s delay in dealing with the Worker’s grievance is significant and unacceptable.

Conclusion

34.The Worker is seeking the following recommendations:

1)     That the Employer clarify the reason why the Worker was selected for his current role.

2)     That the Employer reinstate so far as possible the Worker’s roles and duties.

3)     That the Employer did not engage meaningfully with the Worker in relation to his grievance within any acceptable timeframe.

35. In the nearly two years since the Worker first submitted his complaint to the Employer, no action has been taken.

36. In March 2020, the Worker was deliberately isolated by the Employer and removed from the main office into an office working by himself. Although the Worker was initially told that the reason for this move was because of Covid-19 protocol, no actions have been taken to move the Worker back to the main office and in fact a designated office has now been assigned to him. The Worker’s workplace is inadequate – it is cold and damp and there are mice present.

37. In his current role the Worker has no interaction with staff on the floor and he has limited interaction with the other supervisors. He finds that his current job is menial and he feels he no longer has an important role to play in the workplace.

38. At a meeting in September 2022, the Worker was informed for the first time that there were complaints of bullying made against him, which complaints were never substantiated or investigated as far as he is aware, and he was certainly never informed of them. It is the Worker’s view that this is the reason why the Worker has been unfairly segregated and isolated. The Worker wishes to resume his normal duties.

39.The Employer’s failure to engage with the Worker has compounded these issues hugely. 

Background

The issues in this dispute concern three claims lodged by the Worker, which are in same vein, and each complaint made under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

The Worker is employed by the Employer since 08/08/2006; he was appointed to the position of Dock Foreman on 07/02/2011 and is currently appointed as a Supervisor.

In 2018, the then CEO of the Employer engaged in a series of "meet and greet" sessions across the company. As part of this process, he visited the location where the Worker works on May 1st  2018. While there, the CEO spoke with a number of staff who voiced concerns about how they were being treated by local management. Comments made by staff included references to bullying and aggression by foremen, a lack of personal respect from management to staff and an unworkable atmosphere which, it was claimed, the then supervisory management had developed in the local site. Following this, the CEO asked the relevant (senior) person from Human Resources, Mr. B. and the chief Mechanical Engineer, Mr. T., to engage in an independent review of operations in that location and seek any necessary interventions/facilitation to improve matters in the workplace. Mr. B./Mr. T. subsequently engaged with the Workplace Advisory Services of the WRC to independently review and facilitate whatever sessions might be required to progress change and improvement. This process was also agreed with the unions.

WRC Process 2018 - 2022.

In July 2018, the WRC commenced this process of review which began with the WRC facilitator (JB) interviewing staff. These individual interviews then formed the basis of group sessions to attempt to solve issues.

Following these interviews, the WRC confirmed in writing [December 2018 – Correspondence submitted], that it had completed 37 interviews, speaking with the majority of staff, their union representatives, officials and management. From this, the views of the staff were confirmed as:

1. Strained workplace relationships caused by poor management style, inconsistent and, when interacting with staff, overly aggressive.

2.     Culture of preferential treatment regarding assignment of work of overtime allocation.

3.     Lack of trust/fairness and a sense from staff that issues are not addressed in any meaningful way.

4.     Morale and the workplace atmosphere generally regarded as poor.

5.     Widespread dissatisfaction with pay causing staff retention issues and residual additional pressure on remaining staff.

6.     Advances in technology causing increasing pressure on staff.

In turn, management said that:

a)      A Poor IR culture existed.

b)     Trust was low.

c)      Relationships were strained (management said this was due to the unwillingness of staff representatives to engage constructively and to compromise on issues).

d)     Staff took a confrontational stance on issues rather than addressing them on merit.

e)     Staff did not acknowledge the authority of supervisors.

The WRC proposed to facilitate a representative joint working party to address the issues of concern and sought agreement from both sides to proceed this way. Having received same, the first WRC/Union/Staff/Management group meeting was scheduled locally and took place in January 2019. Meetings continued throughout 2019 and into 2020 on a bimonthly basis — the Worker was invited to participate in these but declined to attend any meetings. It was during these meetings that it became clearer that the issues of claimed aggression/antagonism by management were directed towards two staff members in particular, one of whom was the Worker.

In March 2020, the WRC process was suspended, as a result of restrictions implemented in response to the Covid-19 pandemic that month. This ultimately delayed the conclusion of the WRC process until June 2022.

Pay Negotiations – “the Agreement”

Also in late 2019, as part of negotiations for the Maintenance supervisors pay deal, the group of supervisors sought to eliminate the Dock Foreman role and move to a flat supervisory structure. This was agreed as part of the final pay agreement and impacted the Worker, who was a Dock Foreman.

At this time, the Worker enquired with the Regional Engineer as to his role and draft role profiles were completed for all supervisor roles in the location where the Worker works, including the proposed role for the Worker. A meeting was scheduled to discuss these which took place on 22nd January 2020. After a few minutes of reviewing the draft role profiles, the Worker said this was a "national issue" and refused to continue the discussions locally — he duly left the meeting. As a result, there has been no agreement on these revised draft role profiles and the Worker has continued to do his pre-2019 duties.

In terms of any changes to the Worker’s role, it is the Employer’s contention this was driven by the change to the Worker’s pay arrangements, which the 2019 pay deal confirmed. As part of this pay deal, and with the elimination of the Dock Foreman role, the Worker was moved onto a consolidated pay arrangement, which eliminated his previous 'basic plus overtime' arrangements. As a result of this, the Worker decided to relinquish some of his previous workload, which he had previously completed on a paid overtime basis. It was through this that the Worker’s workload became what it continues to be today.

This means the Worker continues to be responsible for planning and organising the preventative maintenance programme for more than 200 vehicles based in his location, which was the mainstay of his role pre-2019. This entails generating the weekly schedule of Dock inspections, monitoring and management of the Dock Board, which sets out the Dock Inspection for all fleet based in the location where the Worker works. Dock Sheets are prepared by the Worker and completed dock sheets are monitored by him to ensure they meet standards. The Worker also processes dock inspection work orders through the SAP system. There is full clarity in terms of this role, and this could have been further enhanced had the Worker engaged in the process of discussion on the new role profiles, in early 2020.

March 2020 — Move into new office

In March 2020, the advent of Covid-19 restrictions required the Employer to implement safety protocols, which includes social distancing measures. All working spaces were risk assessed, which involved measuring the space and social distancing capacity at every location in the local site.

The risk assessment of the foremen's office confirmed that 2 metre distancing could not be maintained with three people at their desks in the office and a maximum of two supervisors should be there at any time. There would ordinarily be three on duty in the office during daytime, Monday to Friday. At this time, the then Regional Engineer, Ms. M., engaged in discussion with the Supervisors who agreed that one of the Supervisors would need to move out of the office into another office on-site. This was considered in terms of the requirements of each role and proximity needs to the staff who would access/egress the office regularly during each day.

After consideration of various options, including relocation of furniture to create extra space, it was decided to relocate the Worker’s desk, which was moved to a meeting room onsite, as this would provide the space for him to operate, without distraction, on the maintenance scheduling of the more than 200 vehicles he has responsibility for. In no way can this be viewed as a "punishment" which the Worker suggests. Ample support was offered by management to ensure the transition to a single occupancy office didn't affect the Worker’s ability to carry out his role. The Worker did not request any support despite repeated enquiries from the then Regional Engineer (Copy of Correspondence submitted).

Currently, with the Covid-19 restrictions broadly lifted, the Worker now works from a newly refurbished office space, built to standard by the Employer Property Team.

Grievance Complaint 2021

On 24th February 2021, the Worker raised a grievance complaint in an email to the relevant HR Manager for the geographical area, Ms. C. (Copy of Correspondence submitted). A further document expanding on the original complaint was submitted on 3rd March 2021, at Ms. C.'s request. Further clarification was sought by Ms. C. as to whether the complaint was one of bullying and harassment, or a grievance, which the Worker clarified as a grievance matter on 10th May 2021 (Copy of Correspondence submitted).

On 24th May the Worker had confirmed to Ms. C. that he was happy for mediation to take place in this matter. Ms. C. confirmed this to the Head of Employee Relations, however, on understanding that the WRC process was only in abeyance and still had to finalise, the Head of ER contacted the Worker's union representative, and advised him the company should await the conclusion of the WRC process before considering the appropriate next steps in relation to the Worker's specific position as any grievance review then could prejudice the work of the WRC group. The company understands that the Worker’s union representative communicated this to the Worker at this time and no further contact was made on the matter 'until later that year.’

Maintenance Manager Position

Later that year, when the maintenance manager position was filled, a subsequent supervisor position became available which the Worker asked to transfer into (Copy of Correspondence submitted). This request was denied, in an email from the Head of ER to the Worker on 13th December 2021 (Copy of Correspondence submitted), owing to the issues it would create within the supervisor group which is bound “the Agreement” for the filling of supervisory positions (Excerpt submitted) This confirms:

Promotion & filling of staff vacancies:

All posts & vacancies including shift and supervisory vacancies will be filled in an open, transparent process. Successful candidates for supervisory roles will be selected on suitability. Shift panels will be filled on suitability and seniority. All successful candidates must successfully complete a 6-month probationary period in the role, feedback will be provided during this period. Existing panels for shift working and acting supervisors will also be subject to annual review and filled accordingly in a transparent process.

In that email of 13th December, the Head of ER also confirmed: "In relation to the mediation process, I understand the WRC is seeking a final meeting in the [location of Worker’s Workplace] in January (Covid restrictions provided) to conclude the mediation process which commenced over the last 2 years. I have spoken with your union representative [Name Redacted] and advised him that I would be happy for management to have a discussion with you in relation to your current role. I would propose this occurs in the coming weeks and, if any residual issues remain, lam happy to engage with your union representative further on the means to resolve same

Multiple discussions were held between the Head of ER and the Worker's union representative in QI, 2022, in relation to the Worker's situation. There was an associated delay in any progress on the subject while the company sought to clarify who was representing the Worker. In November 2021, the company had received correspondence from the Worker's Solicitor, Ms. White (Copy of Correspondence submitted). Further correspondence was received from Ms. White in January and March 2022 (Copy of Correspondence submitted), and it was only confirmed by the Worker on 16th May 2022 that his union was representing him, and he was no longer engaging with his Solicitor (Copy of Correspondence submitted).

On 29th April 2022, the union had written to the company seeking a meeting between the Worker and management to establish a clear plan around the Worker's progression in role and position in the location where he works (Copy of Correspondence submitted). Following clarity on representation arrangements, management wrote to the Worker on 23rd June 2022, with an invitation to meet on 22nd July 2022 — this was due to annual leave arrangements for some involved. Unfortunately, this meeting never took place owing to an extended period of sick leave which the Worker experienced between 29th June and the 5th  September 2022.

Following the Worker's return to work on 5th September, a further invitation to meet was sent by local management for 20th September (Copy of Correspondence submitted).

On 9th September 2022, local management received a further email from the Worker's union representative in relation to the Worker's grievance from May 2021 and said that, for a constructive meeting to take place between the company and the Worker, answers were required from the company on the lack of progress of the grievance (Copy of Correspondence submitted).

Management responded to the union on 12th September confirming the grievance from May 2021 had not progressed at that time owing to the ongoing WRC process and the need to conclude same (Copy of Correspondence submitted). It is the company's position that any progression on the grievance at that time in 2021 would prejudice the work of the WRC group. Management proposed the meeting on 20th September 2022 would proceed to see if issues could be resolved and, if the Worker remained dissatisfied and wanted his grievance to proceed, this could be arranged.

The meeting took place on 20th September between the Worker, the now Regional Engineer, Mr. H., and the Head of Engineering, Mr. T.. A number of issues were discussed and there was a robust exchange of views. During this meeting, the company committed to working with the Worker to define and agree his role profile.

Following this meeting, management received an email from the Worker on 28th September 2022 thanking it for meeting with him with a view to putting the past issues behind him (Copy of Correspondence submitted). The Worker also outlined concerns about a number of issues:-

o   The WRC process and his relocation in what he saw as a move sideways.

o   B & H allegations made during the WRC process not handled through the Employer’s policy.

o   Worker did not believe the atmosphere in the workplace had improved. Believed the perception was things had improved because he was not in a position to "target anyone anymore" which he rejected.

o   Worker referred to an ongoing investigation into allegations of theft of fuel from the depot (which did not involve him).

o   Worker made a request to return to the main supervisor's office.

On 18th October, the Head of Engineering contacted the local manager, Mr H. and the Worker, to propose a meeting on November 9th to discuss the Worker's role profile (Copy of Correspondence submitted). The Worker replied on 19th October (Copy of Correspondence submitted) saying:

"l have attached my last email to you to which you have not responded. In light of this and the disclosure at our last meeting of the deliberate isolation of me on foot of unfounded allegations, I do not feel I have any option but to withdraw from below discussions. Based on my experience so far, I do not have confidence that [the Employer’s] management will act in my best interest.

Furthermore, I will be raising a new grievance in relation to the actions taken against me arising out of the 2021 WRC investigation. I have consulted [my union representative] as to who I should raise this grievance with at this stage as based on my experience to date, [the Employer’s] management do not seem capable of following [the Employer’s] policies."

The Head of Engineering replied to the Worker on October 19th confirming the company position, as follows:

"l believe that our direct discussions were positive, and actions taken since our last meeting with regard to working on a role profile were all going in the right direction to address your concerns Obviously if you now feel otherwise then you should take the path which you believe is right for you.

Again, the offer of a meeting to progress role details on Wednesday November 9th in [location redacted] is still open.' (Copy of Correspondence submitted)

On November 7th the Head of Engineering again emailed the Worker to see if the meeting might proceed (Copy of Correspondence submitted) but got an immediate reply from the Worker to say he was not able to attend the meeting (Copy of Correspondence submitted).

There has been no further contact on this matter since then which is entirely regrettable and unsustainable.

Company Position

1.     The company is currently in a process with the Worker to clarify all aspects of his role. The Worker has now withdrawn from this process. This is the best means for clarity to be gained by him in respect of his position and the company would seek a recommendation that the Worker re-engage with this discussion.

2.     The Worker's current role is far from 'menial'. Currently the Worker is responsible for the preventative maintenance programme for more than 200 vehicles; this was the mainstay of his role pre-2019. There is no difference in the workload for which the Worker bears responsibility; any changes to previous workload derive from the 2019 pay deal and the consolidated pay arrangement the Worker was placed on which caused him to relinquish activities he previously carried out on an overtime basis.

3.     In relation to any claim which the Worker has to move him back into the office, he is now located in a newly refurbished office built to a high standard by the Employer Property team.

4.     Any allegations of 'deliberate isolation' claimed are entirely rejected. The Worker moved office due to Covid-19 restrictions. This followed a risk assessment which confirmed that one desk needed to be moved to meet social distancing protocols. Full consideration was given to all aspects before any decision was made to move the Worker.

5.     The company rejects any claims of a delay in dealing with the Worker in relation to his grievance. There has been comprehensive engagement with the Worker's union representative on his behalf since the grievance was made in 2021. After taking 3 months to confirm the status of the complaint made, it was communicated to the union in May 2021 that the WRC process would need to conclude before dealing with any complaint. In late 2021, when it was believed the WRC process would soon conclude, a further offer to meet was made to the Worker. At this time, however, the issue of representation, and by whom, became a consideration, as correspondence was received from the Worker's Solicitor in late November 2021. It took until May 2022 for the company to receive clarity from the Worker that the union was representing him which only then allowed meetings to proceed.

Immediately upon conclusion of the WRC process in June 2022, management wrote to the Worker offering to meet on 22nd July. This meeting was postponed as the Worker was absent on sick leave from 29th June to 5th September 2022. Upon return to work in September a meeting was held on 20th September and the Worker has now withdrawn from this process.

Conclusion

The company respectfully requests the Adjudication Officer would reject this claim and recommend the Worker reengage with the company at a further meeting to clarify the position regarding his role in the company.

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

I conclude that the delay in engaging with the Worker’s grievance by the Employer is inordinate, even taking into account, the Covid-19 pandemic, and other surrounding circumstances identified by the Employer.

I conclude that the Worker is entitled to have his grievance/complaints processed in line with the Employer’s own policies and time-lines, in order to provide him an effective remedy in the workplace without undue delay.

I recommend that the Employer pay the Worker €2,500 compensation for the delay in processing his grievance, within 42 days of the date of this recommendation.

I recommend that the Employer commence the processing of the Worker’s grievance/complaints immediately and I recommend that the Employer is to process the Worker’s grievance/complaints fully (through all stages of the Employer’s grievance process as set out, if required), in line with its own grievance policies and procedures, including any final appeal stage, and I recommend that the Employer is to issue a final written (appeal) outcome to the Worker and/or his representatives, no later than 90 days from the date of this recommendation. In other words, every stage of the process, including any appeal process, is to be fully concluded within 90 days of the date of this recommendation. [The parties may mediate the dispute, on consent, if appropriate – but if mediation fails, the 90 day deadline for final conclusion of this matter through the Employer’s own grievance process, including any and all appeals, still stands. The parties may appoint an independent third party, in line with the policy, if applicable or appropriate.]   

Subsequent to the issuing of the outcome of the Worker’s grievance, to the extent to which it is applicable, if at all, I recommend that the Worker engage with the Employer with respect to clarifying his role profile and duties going forward.

Subsequent to the final written outcome of the Worker’s grievance having issued to him/no later than 90 days from the date of this recommendation, I further recommend that the Worker meet and engage with a suitable person from the Employer’s HR, nominated by the Employer, with a view to identifying together suitable professional development for the Worker, e.g. an appropriate course the Worker may undertake, which I recommend is funded by the Employer.

Grievance; Failure to process; Covid-19; Isolation; Failure to Engage;