Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

District Manager

Transport Provider

Representatives

Emmett Cotter

 Cathy Maguire, BL, instructed by in house solicitor.

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 - 00000323

31/05/2022

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00000324

31/05/2022

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00000325

31/05/2022

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00000326

31/05/2022

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00000327

31/05/2022

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00000328

31/05/2022

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00000634

06/09/2022

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00000635

06/09/2022

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00000636

06/09/2022

The worker has submitted a number of matters in dispute with his employer.  These emanate from the employer’s decision to undertake an investigation and a subsequent plan to implement a management restructure.  The worker’s position that no change to his terms and conditions can be implemented without his agreement.  This dispute 7has resulted in a protracted exchange of correspondence between the worker and his employer.  At the hearing on 21/03/2022 the parties agreed that they would submit their final positions on these matters to the adjudicator who would then issue recommendations of the basis of those submissions.

The worker submitted two complaint forms (31/05/2022 and 06/09/2022) and these disputes are summarised as follows:

IR-SC-0000323: The employer refused to meet with the worker in relation to an impugned investigation process.

IR-SC-0000324: The employer failed to respond to the worker’s correspondence in relation to an impugned investigation process.

IR-SC-0000325: The worker alleges that he was threatened with disciplinary proceedings for which there was no basis and the employer failed to protect him from this correspondence which led to this.

IR-SC-0000326: The worker received correspondence from the employer in relation to an impugned investigation process which caused him stress and the employer failed to protect him.

IR-SC-0000327: The worker alleges that his employer actively subjected him to a process which was later deemed to be unauthorised and unfair.

IR-SC-0000328: The worker believes that those who subjected him to the above actions and the harm they caused him should be held accountable for their actions.

IR-SC-0000634: The worker is in dispute with the employer in relation to clarification that he is obliged by virtue of his contract of employment to apply for staff vacancies, either established or new.

IR-SC-0000635: The worker is in dispute with the employer in relation to clarification that there is no collective agreement in place for managerial grade staff.

IR-SC-0000636: This dispute is in relation to the alleged failure of the employer to implement pay rates for his grade following an independent review of this grade in 2011.

It is the workers case that he and a colleague were informed that they were to be the subject of an investigation by their employer arising from their role on a pension scheme committee.  The employers right to commission such an investigation (referred to as the impugned investigation) was disputed by the worker.  The investigation proceeded and its findings were appealed by the worker. His appeal was upheld and as a result the finding and conclusions this investigation no longer has any status.   The worker made a complaint in relation to this investigation process, and this was the subject of an independent investigation which is referred to as the KD investigation.  The worker made a total of seven separate complaints.  The KD investigation upheld three of the complaints and did not uphold one.  Of the other three complaints two were deemed to be to appropriate for a workplace grievance and another was the subject of a favourable recommendation for the worker.

The worker believes that as result of this process his employer has subjected him to unfavourable treatment and that it continued to ignore company procedures and his conditions of employment.  The worker cites examples of where his e mails were either not responded to or selectively responded to.  The worker believes that a proposed change to his role was brought about as a result of his successful outcome of the grievances which were independently investigation and that he is now being targeted in order to force him to accept a lesser role with the employer.

The respondent has accepted the report of the KD investigation in full and has implemented that report by acknowledging that the complainants are respected and highly regarded members of the operations management.  The acceptance and acknowledgement were sent by the CEO to the worker approximately one month after the KD report was issued.

The employer submits that the report was “a full and fair process and upheld many of [the worker’s] complaints.  While [the worker’s] submission is fulsome in its praise of [investigator] he nonetheless does not accept that report, save insofar as it found in his favour”.

The employer also submits that many of the disputes submitted by the worker appear to be a re-statement of the complaints already upheld by the investigation.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions and documents presented to me by the parties.   This is a trade dispute referred by the Worker under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.  By way of clarification there are no complaints under any employment rights statute or any matter of law before me in this referral. At the hearing the Adjudication Officer clarified that this is a voluntary process and there is no formal evidence taken, and no witness evidence. In that context there are no findings of fact made.

The role of an Adjudicator in relation to disputes of this nature is to make a recommendation to try and resolve this dispute.  Given that there are a total of nine matters in dispute these are related to two separate matters.  Firstly, the impugned investigation submitted on 31/05/2022 and secondly in relation to the proposed restructure submitted on 06/09/2022.

Disputes submitted on 31/05/2022:

IR-SC-0000323: The employer refused to meet with the worker in relation to an impugned investigation process. 

IR-SC-0000324: The employer failed to respond to the worker’s correspondence in relation to an impugned investigation process.

IR-SC-0000325: The worker alleges that he was threatened with disciplinary proceedings for which there was no basis and the employer failed to protect him from this correspondence which led to the impugned investigation.

IR-SC-0000326: The worker received correspondence form the employer in relation to the impugned investigation process which caused him stress and the employer failed to protect him.

IR-SC-0000327: The worker alleges that his employer actively subjected him to a process which was later deemed to be unauthorised and unfair.

IR-SC-0000328: The worker believes that those who subjected him to the above actions and the harm they caused him should be held accountable for their actions.

The worker in this case has made many references to his employment rights.  As previously stated, these are trade disputes referred by the worker under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.  There are no complaints under any employment rights statute or any matter of law before me in this referral and the worker has not recognised the separation between an employment rights matter and an industrial relations matter.

All the issues which are the subject of the six disputes listed above were dealt with as part of the independent investigation.  The final paragraph of the report states: “Acceptance of the conclusions set out in this report should be regarded as an acknowledgement by the respondent that the complainants were subjected to unfair treatment in employment, by reason of the matters addressed herein, which caused them considerable anxiety and distress and by any objective standard of fair employment practice that should not have occurred”.  The employer has made it abundantly clear that it accepts the report without any conditions in an e mail from the employers CEO to the worker: “On behalf of (the company) as we accept the report, we acknowledge this finding”.

The role of the adjudicator is to make a recommendation that will assist in resolving this dispute.  The only recommendation possible is that the worker now accepts the outcome of the KD report as a means of bringing this to an unqualified close. 

It is a matter for the employer to address any issues in relation to any other employee who was involved in that investigation. 

Disputes submitted on 06/09/2022:

IR-SC-0000634: The worker is in dispute with the employer in relation to clarification that he is obliged by virtue of his contract of employment to apply for staff vacancies, either established or new.

IR-SC-0000635: The worker is in dispute with the employer in relation to clarification that there is no collective agreement in place for managerial grade staff.

The first two disputes are in relation to the proposed restructure by the employer.  The worker has submitted a separate complaint form in relation to these two disputes.  These will be the subject of a separate recommendation and accordingly I will not make an additional recommendation on these disputes.

IR-SC-0000636: This dispute is in relation to the alleged failure of the employer to implement pay rates for his grade following an independent review of this grade in 2011.  The worker has not provided any further information in relation to this dispute.  Given that this is a matter which, on the face of it, seems to have been twelve years and no information was provided in relation to any attempts to resolve this at local level it is not possible to make any recommendation.

Grievance.  Investigation.