ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00000780
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Psychiatric Nurse | A Service Provider |
Representatives |
|
|
Dispute:
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 - 00000780 | 19/10/2022 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer
Date of Hearing: 07/06/2023
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended) following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute.
Background:
The hearing was conducted remotely in accordance with the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and Statutory Instrument 359/2020 which designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. The Complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 19 October 2022. |
Summary of Workers Case:
It was the Worker’s case that his overtime was cancelled despite agreeing to undertaken it. The Worker made numerous attempts to resolve the matter locally before invoking the Grievance Procedure. A written decision to Stage 1 of the Procedure issued on 21 March 2022. The Worker , unhappy with the outcome, invoked Stage 2 of the Procedure with a written decision issuing on 14 April 2022. The Worker further appealed this decision and invoked Stage 3 of the process with a commitment made pay the Employee for the cancelled shifts. Despite commitments from the HR Manager who heard the Stage 3 Appeal on 24 June 2022, no written decision was forthcoming. Numerous attempts over an extended period were made for an update on the decision but despite these efforts there was no communication whatsoever from the HR Manager. The Worker felt it had no option but to refer the matter to the WRC. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
It was the Employer’s case that the HR Manager has been on long term sick leave and there is no record of the meeting with the Employee. The Employer offered to pay the net sum of €456.20 the sum the Employee would have earned. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. I am satisfied that the Employee made every effort to seek to exhaust the internal procedures but by the Employer’s own admission it has no record of the meeting or decision but accepted what was agreed.
I accept the Employer’s offer of payment to pay the net sum of the cancelled shift for the Employer. However , the frustration due to the lack of response by the Employer in relation to the Employee’s grievance is very much appreciated and falls short of what is expected of a reasonable Employer where the policies and procedures are abundantly clear. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I am recommending the Employer pays the net sum of €456.20 together with compensation in the sum of €1,000 within 6 weeks of this decision for the inordinate delay in responding to the Employee on Stage 3 of the Grievance Procedure.
Furthermore, I recommend that all grades of People Managers, including Directors, undergo training on the Grievance Policy to ensure there is a full understanding of the procedures and the importance of following them. It is recommended that this training is completed within a period of 10 months from the date of Recommendation .
Dated: 21st June 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Una Glazier-Farmer
Key Words:
Recommendation – Grievance Procedure |