Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Restaurant Worker

A Restaurant

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 - 00000598

29/08/2022

The complainant has been on sick leave. Her last day at work before her period of sick leave was May 15th, 2021, and she remains certified as unfit for work until January 2024 at the earliest.

These complaints were submitted to the WRC on August 29th, 2022, some fifteen months after she last attended for work.

The complainant says that she has submitted a complaint under the Dignity at Work policy in respect of alleged bullying by a co-worker to the respondent.

However, she went sick shortly after these events and nothing was done to process her complaint.

In 2007, the complainant commenced work with the company and on February 7th, 2018 she was provided with an updated Employee Handbook, including the current Grievance Procedure and Bullying & Harassment Policy (extract and acknowledgement submitted).

On May 16th, 2021, the complainant made a complaint to Head Office in respect of interpersonal issues with colleagues and this was acknowledged on May 20th. A meeting was set up for May 21st, but the complainant cancelled on May 20th.

Then on May 17th, 2021, the complainant was certified as unfit to work and remains certified unfit up to January 2024.

On May 24th, 2023 the respondent was first notified of this (and a related) WRC complaint.

The company took reasonable steps in accordance with Section 15.3 Employment Equality Act, 1998 to prevent and to protect employees from bullying and harassment. It has in excess of four hundred employees and a robust Grievance Procedure and Bullying & Harassment Policy (extract submitted) which employees know how to access whether by means of an informal or formal approach.

 The complainant is familiar with the Bullying & Harassment Policy and Grievance Procedure and has successfully participated in mediation to resolve two separate interpersonal issues in the past. Both of these previous matters were amicably resolved with employees continuing to work together afterwards.

It is accepted by the respondent that the complainant has a grievance.

She raised this with the company in 2021. Because the complainant was submitting medical certificates to say she was unfit for work the normal investigative procedure could not be commenced and was therefore paused until the complainant was fit to return to work or engage with the process.

Since then she has continued to be certified medically unfit to return to work which in turn has prevented the running of any grievance procedure.  Email exchanges with management clearly show that the respondent   was ready and willing to commence the investigation as soon as the complainant was fit to do so.  (email exchanges submitted).

The company has robust policies and procedures to resolve any type of workplace matter, as we have done in the past, and we look forward to investigating the complainant ’s grievance once we are aware of the details of same.

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

The complainant has been on sick leave since May 2022 to date; a period of some eighteen months and has been quite unwell at various stages throughout that time, including a period in hospital. There is no indication at this stage when she might return to work.

As noted above the respondent accepts fully that there is an outstanding grievance and is anxious to process it as soon as the complainant is well enough to participate in the relevant process. While some certification was received as to the capacity of the complainant to attend a single meeting, the respondent regarded this as an insufficient basis to enter a full grievance process. I agree with them.

In the course of the hearing, a consensus emerged that a suitably constructed dispute resolution process aimed at moving towards a resolution of the issue of the grievance would offer a way forward.

The person against whom the grievance was made has since left the company, and obviously without commenting on the validity of the grievance (which was not ventilated in the hearing) this may remove one obstacle to a resolution.

This process would be entirely confidential and facilitated by an independent dispute resolution professional/mediator with an open agenda aimed only at a resolution.

The parties are to be commended for this approach, although it is regrettable something along these lines was not considered earlier.

I recommend accordingly.

Mediation, informal resolution.