Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Employee

A County Council

Representatives

  Self-Represented

HR Manager

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Industrial Relations Act 1969

CA-00048003

06/01/2022

The Employee, who is a Park Ranger, was the subject of two complaints from members of the general public. He was invited to a meeting with his Manager about the complaints, the allegations put to him were vehemently denied by the Employee and he advised the Hearing that he was just doing his job. No disciplinary action was taken against the employee but he sought an apology from the Council and compensation.

The Employee was involved in an incident with a member of the Public on September 16th 2020 where the member of the public made a complaint. A second incident occurred on September 7th 2020.

The complaints related to situations where dogs were in the children’s play area and the alleged early closure of the Park where the Employee was working.

The Employee was brought to an internal meeting with his Manager to discuss the complaints and he disputed the allegations.

The Employee was aggrieved that the complaints were not required to be signed by the member of the Public.

The Employee alleged there may have been collusion in the bringing of the two complaints.

The Employee denied the public complaints and stated he was only doing his job.

The Employee sought an apology and compensation from the Employer.

The employee is employed by the Council as a Park Ranger and has been in this role since December 2007.

On 16th September 2020 the employee was invited to attend an interview in accordance with the Council’s Disciplinary procedure to discuss “complaints from users of the park for alleged incidents that occurred on Saturday, 5th and Monday 7th September 2020. At the meeting on 18th September 2020, the employee refused to discuss the incident of 7th September 2020 on the basis that the complainant had not signed the letter in his presence. The meeting did not progress any further at that time and no further disciplinary action was taken.

On 27th October 2021, the employee submitted a grievance to HR seeking “in depth investigation into the XX incident in particular”. HR issued this grievance to the relevant line manager in order for it to be managed in accordance with the Council’s Grievance policy. Grievances made by members of Council staff against members of the public do not fall within the Council’s grievance policy. Nor is it possible for the Council to proceed with same as there is no obligation on members of the public to engage with the policy. If a Council staff member is the subject of physical or verbal abuse by a member of the public this is dealt with by way of complaint to An Garda Siochana or in exceptional cases members of the public maybe refused access to Council offices.

A complaint was then submitted to the WRC on 6th January 2022.  The employee’s grievance of 27th October 2021 sought to re-open a process which the Council had begun a year previously i.e. investigate a complaint from a member of the public. However at the time of the incidents and complaints when the Council attempted to deal with the issue, the employee refused to fully participate, as he has confirmed in his grievance submitted to HR i.e. “I won’t discuss the content until she signs it in my presence”. The issue that lies at the core of the employee’s dispute relates to the fact that he would not engage with the investigation process into a complaint made by a member of the public as he had not witnessed her signing it. The Council are obliged to investigate all complaints made to it by members of the public; the initial part of this process being to establish the bona fides of the complaint and if there is any basis to it. The simple fact of the matter in this instance is that the employee refused to engage. The member of the public was entitled to submit a complaint and the Council were obliged to investigate same and that could only be undertaken with the employee’s co-operation.  In summary, the Council was of the view that the employee cannot on one hand fail to engage in a process and then a year later seek to have the matter re-opened and investigated. The Council sought the adjudicator to dismiss the complaint.

During the Hearing the parties engaged in a constructive dialogue about how complaints from the public are dealt with and appeared to reach a conclusion that the Employer would review its customer complaints process and issue a letter to the Employee addressing his issues. The Council prepared a letter to this effect and it was sent to the Employee post Hearing but the employee did not accept it and sought an apology and compensation.

Having considered the details of this dispute I find that no disciplinary action was taken against the Employee and the Council were and are obliged to investigate complaints from the general public. The Employees lack of willingness to engage in the investigation process due to the complaint not being signed in his presence was unreasonable and if, as he requested, it became Council policy could both lead to a lack of willingness from the public to come forward with complaints and indeed been seen as a form of intimidation to submitting a complaint from the public.

The Employer confirmed to the Employee that in the future once a complaint is received, it will be registered with the Customer Services Unit within Corporate Services and then dealt with initially by the service department concerned. If the member of the public is dissatisfied with the outcome, they can refer their complaint to the Council’s Customer Services Liaison Officer and escalate it if required through the process as outlined in the Council Customer information leaflet. In effect, the Employee, through the bringing on the complaint has enhanced and reinforced the customer complaints policy. However, I am obliged to view this dispute from an industrial relations perspective and not a public complaints perspective. Two members of the Public made complaints, the Council were required to investigate the public complaints, the employee was requested to attend a meeting to discuss the complaints, the Council took into account his views (albeit not given in a fully co-operative manner due to him requesting the complaints being signed in his presence) and finally and most importantly no disciplinary action was taken against the employee. The Employee advised in his complaint form that “I am left devastated to say the least that my character has been assassinated with such venom”. I consider it appropriate to find that there were no findings against the Employee in the investigation process to support his character being questioned.

I find that there is, in effective, no trade dispute to adjudicate upon and there is no justification for an apology or compensation.

I find in favour of the Employer.

Trade Dispute