Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

General Operative

Detention Campus

Representatives

Eoghan Ryan of Forsa

 Gerry Mitchell, IR Advisor

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 - 00000704

26/09/2022

The worker claims the employer had delayed the investigation of her grievance, contrary to their procedures

The worker is a General Operative in the Household Section of the employer. She, and four colleagues, lodged formal grievances in relation to their treatment by their line manager in April 2021. A meeting was arranged for July but was cancelled and not re-arranged. In September 2021 she received an acknowledgement of her complaint and was advised that a meeting would be scheduled shortly to look into the grievance. In January 2022 voluntary mediation took place under the auspices of the WRC but in April the report was rejected by the worker and the other workers involved. They then sought to have their individual grievances dealt with formally. No progress was made in investigating the grievance and the worker submitted this dispute in September 2022.

The worker says the lack of investigation is contrary to the Grievance procedure in the Employee Handbook.

The worker is seeking an immediate external investigation in a timebound process and to be compensated for the delay involved. 

The employer says in April 2021 the worker was one of five who submitted formal complaints in relation to their line manager. All five were invited to meetings in July 2021 but the meeting with the worker in this dispute was postponed due to her absence on leave. In October 2021 a joint referral was made by the employer and Forsa, representing the workers, to the WRC to carry out a review of workplace/industrial relations. A report was submitted in February 2022 which, among other things, recommended the appointment of an independent facilitator/mediator “with a view to finding a resolution to the individual grievances on hand, as a matter of priority.”

The WRC officer who carried out the review was appointed as the independent facilitator/mediator. He met everyone involved and issued a report on 4 April 2022. He recommended “the establishment of an independently facilitated joint collaborative forum”.

The worker and her co-workers rejected this recommendation and in June 2022 individually lodged formal complaints. At a meeting on 27 July 2022 it was agreed by all parties they would continue to carry out their duties and procedures during the formal investigation of the grievances.

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

It is clear that there have been difficulties with some members of the Household staff and their manager. After the initial formal grievances were raised by 5 members of staff, attempts have been made, through a joint management/union referral, to have these issues addressed on a collective basis.

The Advisory Service of the WRC carried out a review of workplace/industrial relations. This led to the appointment of an independent facilitator/mediator. Having met all involved he recommended the establishment of “an independently facilitated joint collaborative forum”.

The worker and her colleagues chose not to be part of this forum and re-lodged their formal grievances individually. Two months after this, in September 2022, this dispute was referred to the WRC. No progress has been made in investigating the workers’ formal grievances.

At this stage it is clear to me that a collective approach is not going to resolve the grievances raised by the worker and her colleagues. Therefore, in all the circumstances the only recommendation I can make is that an investigation into the worker’s grievance is started immediately.

Given everything that has happened I recommend this investigation should be carried out in accordance with stage 3 of the employer’s procedures. It is important that both sides maintain the right of an appeal in accordance with stage 4 of the procedures. This investigation should deal with the worker’s individual grievances and be separate from those of her colleagues who have also lodged similar grievances. However, it must be recognised there are certain elements of overlap in the grievances and investigations, whilst being separate, should run alongside each other. This recognises the possibility that outcomes of the investigations may impact more than one of the workers.

The investigation should be carried out by someone who has not been involved in this dispute so far. If necessary, that may involve the appointment of an external person. This is a different type of appointment than that referred to in stage 4 of the procedures, which talks of a referral to an appropriate third party. Indeed, I would recommend that is amended in the employer’s procedures.

It must be borne in mind by all those involved that the working environment in the Household staff must be very difficult for everyone, not only those involved directly. I say this to make sure everyone sees the importance of expediting the investigations. Timelines should be set out the stages and completion of the investigation, including the issuing of the outcome and adhered to, with the co-operation of all involved.

I have considered the request for compensation but I do not consider this appropriate when I have closely considered all the matters put before me.

IR dispute