Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Bookeeper/Customer Service

Packaging Company

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 - 00001126

28/02/2023

The Worker was employed in a book keeping, Customer Service and Office Administrator role by the Employer from 29/03/2021 until she resigned on 28/02/2023.  She worked 26 hours per week and was paid €1,603.08 gross per month (Net €1,536.52).

The following is a summary of the Worker’s case.  The Worker is “seeking justice for the way I was treated” and submits that she was treated less favourably than her colleagues.  She was not given opportunities for advancement and was not given opportunities to apply for other jobs with the Employer.  The Worker believes that she was doing a lot of work for other colleagues, and she was not paid for this.  The Worker also believes that she was subjected to harassment and an example of this was that her pay was reduced if she took extra holidays, but colleagues were not deducted when they took additional leave. Her status in the workplace was reduced and she believed that this amounted to discrimination.

In relation to the other job on offer she was not aware of this and received no communication about it.  The Worker resigned her post as the environment was too hostile and she felt so isolated that she could not take any more.  The Worker outlined that she was unable to go to work and, in the weeks prior to her resignation, she kept her desk cleared in case she would not be able to return.

The Worker confirmed that she reported to the managing director.  The Worker outlined that during her appraisal meeting she mentioned some of these issues and was satisfied that this constituted her raising a grievance. 

The Worker submitted that she wanted to be compensated for the way she was treated, and an apology was not going to be sufficient.  The Worker had not quantified what compensation she was seeking.

It was submitted on behalf of the Employer that there was a formal grievance procedure available to the Worker and she never availed of this prior to her resignation.  Appraisal meetings are not forums for grievances to be raised.  Any Worker seeking a recommendation under Section13 of the Industrial Relations Act needs to exhaust the local remedies available and the Worker in this case did not advance any.   It is incumbent on Workers to raise a grievance and have this heard formally.  The Worker made a vague reference at her appraisal meeting to some issues, but she did not progress these through the Employer’s grievance procedure.  The Employer does not agree with the Worker’s view that “they were out of their depth” and that was the reason they engaged the services of an external HR company.  The Employer engaged the services of the external HR company to impartially and professionally investigate the complaints made by other Workers against the Worker in this case.  As part of that process all the Workers, including the Worker, were once again provided with a copy of the Employer’s grievance and disciplinary policy.  This investigation would also have provided an opportunity for the Worker to outline her response to the complaints.  She decided to resign and therefore was not available to participate in the investigation.

The Employer’s representative also noted that there was no complaint of discrimination properly before the WRC in this case.  Any issues in relation to holidays should have been referred under the provisions of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997.  There was no grievance submitted by the Worker in relation to her bonus.  If the Worker had issued in relation to why she felt she had to resign she should have submitted a complaint of constructive dismissal to the WRC and not used the provisions of the Industrial Relations Acts.   The respondent also noted that the complainant has failed to submit any complaints in relation to civil status or race and any such complaints are not properly before the WRC.

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

While the Worker in this case had raised a number of employment rights matters, I confirmed to the Worker that there are no complaints under any employment rights statute or any matter of law before me in this referral.

The first issue to be resolved is the status of the Worker to bring a dispute under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.  I am satisfied that the Worker submitted her dispute to the WRC on 28/02/2023 [11.15am] and not 27/02/2023 as stated by the Employer.  She resigned her position also on 28/02/2023 but sometime after she had submitted her dispute to the WRC. 

In such circumstances the WRC does have jurisdiction to deal with this dispute.

Disputes under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 should generally only be referred to the WRC when all internal efforts to resolve the dispute have been exhausted and the Worker. It is the Employer’s case that the Worker’s dispute is not properly before the Workplace Relations Commission for investigation on the basis that none of the internal mechanisms to resolve the Worker’s dispute were availed of or exhausted by the Worker.

The very essence of my role as an investigator of industrial disputes is that both parties must be aware of a dispute being in existence in the first place so that I can find a fair resolution.  I have no doubt that the Worker had a number of issues related to her employment, but she never escalated any purported employment issues to the point of bringing them to the attention of the Employer through the grievance procedure, during her employment. Moreover, I am satisfied that the Employer had extensive procedures, both informal and formal, as well as a comprehensive step-by-step grievance procedure.

In the Industrial Relations arena, the WRC should not be the first preference for a Worker to submit disputes of this nature. resort.  In the case to hand the Worker chose not to exhaust the internal procedures prior to referring the case to the WRC. In normal circumstances the WRC would recommend that the Worker return to the internal grievance procedure to process her complaints. However, as the Worker has now resigned her position there is no merit in doing that.

Therefore, I am not prepared to accept jurisdiction in relation to this dispute.

Grievance procedure.