ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00000831
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | An Employee | An Employer |
Representatives | Padge Reck | Des Kavanagh Des J. Kavanagh HR Consultancy Ltd. |
Dispute(s):
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 - 00000831 | 12/07/2022 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Christina Ryan
Date of Hearing: 15/02/2023 and 26/09/2023
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.
This matter was heard by way of a remote hearing on the 15th February 2023 and the 26th September 2023 pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
I received and reviewed documentation from both parties prior to the hearing.
As this is a trade dispute under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 the hearing took place in private and the parties are not named.
The Employer’s CEO provided the correct legal name for the Employer which is cited in this Recommendation.
Background:
The Worker has been employed by the Employer since the 1st February 2003. She currently holds the position of Chef de Partie. She earns €546.00 gross per week and €460 net per week and works 39 hours per week. The Worker submitted her dispute to the Workplace Relation Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the WRC”) on the 12th July 2022. The parties disagreed as to whether the internal procedures at the Worker’s workplace had been exhausted before the dispute was submitted to the WRC. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The Worker outlined her belief that the internal procedures had been exhausted. Her representative outlined that the Worker had engaged in a lengthy process to resolve her issues and that the Worker believed that she had engaged and exhausted the Employer’s internal procedures. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Employer outlined that the formal procedures had not been exhausted. The Employer referred to emails and other correspondence with the Worker and her representative submitted to the WRC by the Worker and the Employer in advance of the hearing wherein the Worker was advised of the internal dispute resolution procedures and requested to put her complaints in writing and to correspondence wherein the Worker was advised of her right of appeal. The Worker did not invoke the Employer’s grievance procedure, she refused to put her complaints in writing and she did not appeal the decision to redeploy her pending a formal investigation of her bullying complaint against a fellow worker. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
It is well established that before submitting a grievance about any matter to the WRC an employee must exhaust the internal procedures at their workplace. In Gregory Geoghegan trading as TAPS v. A Worker INT1014 the Labour Court held:
“The Court is not prepared to insert itself into the procedural process in a situation where the dispute procedures have been bypassed.”
I conclude that as the internal procedures have not been exhausted therefore I cannot insert myself into the procedural process. In the circumstances, I conclude that the Worker’s dispute is not well founded. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
Having considered the arguments outlined by both parties and having regard to all the circumstances I do not recommend in favour of the Worker.
Dated: 10-10-2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Christina Ryan
Key Words:
Internal Procedures |