ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00000698
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | Employer | Employee |
Representatives | Deirdre Canty SIPTU | Kevin Feighery IBEC |
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 - 00000698 | 22/09/2022 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Janet Hughes
Date of Hearing: 29/09/2023
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.
Background:
This dispute is concerned with the outcome of two workplace investigations-one classified as a grievance and the other a complaint of bullying. Both processes related to the same issues. In the complaint form and the submission for the hearing, an apology was sought directly from the employees who were the subject of the complaint/grievance. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The issues which gave rise to the complaints by the employee were concerned with exclusion from training and overtime. SIPTU provided a timeline concerned with the submission of the grievance and the complaint and the dates of the investigation processes which were undertaken by the employer. The timeline commenced in August 2020 with the report from the second investigation issuing in August 2021. Correspondence issued by the employer while it did include an apology from the employer when her grievance was upheld-did not include any apology from the individuals concerned. SIPTU explained that the employee felt that an apology from those employees would be more meaningful. The problems which lead to the grievance were still continuing. The dispute was referred to the WRC in September 2022. At the hearing, and in response to the employers information that the two employees concerned had since left the employment and therefore an apology could not be provided by them, SIPTU was given some time to discuss with the employee what was being sought by way of a recommendation which could resolve the dispute in light of the current circumstances. Their response is contained in the conclusions. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The IBEC submission also gave a timeline the grievances and investigations also including the notes of interviews. Originally the employee submitted a grievance which was investigated and allowed for an appeal process. The company had apologised for her exclusion form overtime and training. in correspondence. The employee then made a formal complaint of bullying and this was also investigated under the bullying procedure. The bullying investigation followed correspondence from the employee in November 2020 in which she criticised the absence of a clear acknowledgement that she was bullied in her workplace and an apology from the individuals concerned. The investigation of alleged bullying concluded in August 2021. At the hearing the employer clarified that the notes of the interviews as part of the bullying procedure were not issued to the employee for her comments. Regarding the apology sought by the employee, the employer would not seek an apology where there was no finding of bullying and in any event the two employees who were the subject of the complaints had since left the employment. On the alternative proposals put by SIPTU to the hearing, they spoke about the system for seeking most training and informing the employer of availability for overtime which have replaced previous systems within the employment. The request for compensation was new one and was rejected. |
Conclusions:
The original apology sought from two employees which formed the basis of the referral to the WRC is not one the employer was obliged to request. They are responsible for the actions of those other employees and to the employee in this case. An employer can request an apology be provided. However, where there was no finding of bullying, there would no basis for such a request.
Moving on to the other points which arose during the hearing, the employer correspondence implied that the employee did not raise her grievances in a timely manner, as she should. There was a considerable delay between the date of the ‘offence’ regarding the training and the submission of a complaint. The employer was justified in flagging to the employee that she should raise an issue sooner rather than much later-this was not however a valid observation regarding the non-inclusion in overtime which was an ongoing issue and seems to have been reported within a reasonable period. The delay in submitting her dispute to the WRC is simply noted as the reason for the delay was not discussed at the hearing. However, it should be noted such delays are generally frowned upon by third parties as being unfair to the other party to the dispute.
I want to emphasise my obvious concern indicated at the hearing that the employee did not receive a copy of the notes of the interviews with the relevant employees who were accused of bullying. This is poor practice. She was entitled to see their defence and to comment on that defence before findings were issued. And it is also noted that there was no explanation provided to her as to why the complaint of bullying was not upheld.
At the hearing, SIPTU sought that the employee be brought up to speed on all of the relevant training; that the employee be asked personally to do overtime rather than having to indicate her availability and also compensation. My own view is that this dispute does need to be brought to closure and the employer has a key role to play in achieving that objective. However, the employee does need to accept that the systems have changed particularly in relation to overtime and she has an obligation to learn and to operate those systems in the same way as all other employees. The recommendations below are intended to assist the parties and I hope they will be considered in the same spirit. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
In order to try to bring closure to this long running dispute, I recommend as follows:
- That an audit of the employees training be conducted by an appropriate trainer/manager and that the employee be consulted as part of that audit. The purpose of the audit would be to ensure that there are no gaps in the training related to the employee’s current role in the employment and if gaps are identified that arrangements be made to provide her with that training.
- The employee should receive further one to one training on how to use any systems for accessing overtime or training in the future. However, the employer is not expected to provide an arrangement for accessing available overtime or training which differs from other employees in her area of work.
- In support of the employer apologies issued previously, I recommend that the employee receive the equivalent of twenty-four hours overtime pay (24 x time and a -half)-to be paid no later than the end of November 2023.
Acceptance of these recommendations by the employee to be confirmed in writing by SIPTU as representing full and final resolution of the grievance/complaints issued by the employee which formed the basis of the related internal company procedures and the dispute referred to the WRC.
Dated: 03/October/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Janet Hughes
Key Words:
Dispute re outcome of internal grievance/bullying procedures. |