Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

An accounts administrator           

 An employer

Representatives

A firm of solicitors.

A barrister instructed by a firm of solicitors.

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-00055629

26/02/2021

Preliminary matter.

The employer raised a jurisdictional matter in an associated complaint which was not upheld and raises the same jurisdictional matter, objecting to a hearing into this dispute.

Findings on this preliminary matter

The relevant provisions governing jurisdiction to investigate a trade dispute are found in 

 Section 13 of the Act of 1969 which provides:

 “b) A rights commissioner shall not investigate a trade dispute—

(i) n/a

(ii) if a party to the dispute notifies the commissioner in writing that he objects to the dispute being investigated by a rights commissioner”.

 Time limits for notification.

Section 36. of the Act provides that a party objecting to an investigation into a trade dispute must comply with the following provision:

“—(1) An objection under section 13 (3) (b) (ii) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, by a party to a trade dispute to an investigation of the dispute by a rights commissioner shall be of no effect unless it is notified in writing to the commissioner within three weeks after notice of the reference of the dispute to the commissioner has been sent by post to that part”.

The facts are that the complaint was lodged on 26/2/2021. The WRC issued the notice on 21/6/21 to the address of the employer.  The employer had three weeks from then to object which would have brought the final date for an objection to the 12/7/21. The employer objected on 29/7/ 21 to an investigation of this trade dispute on a jurisdictional basis. Hence the notification occurred outside of the 3 weeks. The employer asked me to consider the objection which they had lodged on 19/5/2021 in advance of the notification of the complaints from the WRC to them on 21/6/2 - they had heard from the worker’s solicitor that a claim was in process. But the Act states

“after notice of the reference of the dispute to the commissioner has been sent by post to that party”.

Furthermore, the objection was based on a jurisdictional argument which was not upheld by the WRC in another complaint.

I do not uphold the employer’s objection to an investigation of this dispute

I will, therefore, investigate this dispute.

Background

 The worker commenced employment on the 4 February 2020 as an account’s administrator. Her contract was terminated in February 2021.

She submits that she was subject to bullying treatment by the employer and was treated unfairly in that she was denied fair procedures during a disciplinary process.

The worker has been employed with the employer for almost a year.

The worker submitted a dispute to the WRC on 26/2/21 alleging bullying and degrading treatment by the employer. The employer issued her with three written warnings; the first was for a minor clerical error; the remaining two written warnings concerned work which she maintains was the responsibility of others.

The employer did not investigate the matters with her prior to issuing a warning and failed to offer her the opportunity to appeal these sanctions. 

She asks that these warning be expunged from her record.

The employer maintains that the WRC does not have jurisdiction to investigate this dispute.

Without prejudice to that position, the employer maintains that as no details were provided prior to the hearing, the complaint should be dismissed.

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

It is accepted that the employer issued the worker with three written warnings. Her submission that the employer failed to involve her in the investigation into the matters giving rise to the warnings, or to offer her an opportunity to appeal against these sanctions was not contested.

The inescapable conclusion is that she was denied fair procedures in the disciplinary process activated against her.

I recommend that the three written warnings be expunged from her records.

I recommend that the employer pay her the sum of €1500 in recognition of their failure to afford her fair treatment.

Absence of fair procedures.