Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A store assistant

A retailer

Representatives

Karen Wall Mandate Trade Union

Michael McGrath IBEC

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 - 00001057

27/01/2023

The employer is a large retailer.  The worker is a store assistant who has worked with the employer for over forty years. A complaint was received by the WRC on 27 January 2023.

The matter was heard by way of remote hearing on 31 May 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.

The worker was represented by her union who provided a detailed written submission.

The worker submits that on Monday 20 December 2021, she attended work and some words were exchanged between her and her supervisor.  As a result of this exchange the worker got very upset left the workplace in distress. Despite her upset the worker hoped the matter could be resolved informally so she did not submit a formal grievance against her supervisor and the loss of earnings she sustained due to having gone home.

When it became clear that the employer had no intention of dealing with or resolving the matter on an informal basis the worker invoked a formal grievance and her union wrote to the employer on 3 June 2022, requesting a formal investigation.  The initial response from the employer to this was that the worker could work extra hours to make up her loss.  This suggestion was unacceptable to the worker.

The union requested that the matter be investigated formally but was told that as the Supervisor had left the company this would not be possible. Despite other interventions by the employer, it is the workers contention that the matter was not investigated properly as it should have been.

In conclusion the worker is very aggrieved that her grievance was completely ignored and that she sustained a loss of two and a half hours’ pay which was due to the bad behaviour of her then Supervisor. The worker believes that as an employee with over 40 years’ service with the company, she has been treated very shabbily and unfairly by her employer as this issue should have been formally investigated in line with the employers’ procedures when she requested same.

The worker requests that her employer provide her with the two and a half hours pay she lost and additionally compensation due to the employer’s flagrant disregard of its own procedures.

The employer provided a written submission.

The employer submits that the following the incident of 20 December 2021, the worker was adamant that she did not want a formal investigation and made this clear on three occasions.  Despite this the worker was given an opportunity to appeal the situation regarding the loss of her hours. However, the appeal found she had left work of her own accord and that it is not acceptable for staff to leave work if they have a disagreement with a colleague.

The employer submits that it and the union have an agreed grievance procedure which should be utilised in situations such as this. Colleagues are advised to utilise the procedure and work under protest if necessary.

The employer believes it has acted reasonably towards the worker at all times and that it was her decision not to go down the formal investigation route.

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

It seems to me that fault lies on both sides; the worker should have invoked the formal grievance procedure sooner and the employer should have made a greater effort to investigate the matter notwithstanding the difficulties involved.

Investigation, grievance.