Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Financial Controller

A Charity

Representatives

Lorna Madden BL instructed by McCarthy Teahan LLP

Denis Collins BL instructed by  O'Flynn Exhams LLP

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00064097

27/01/2022

This dispute pertains to the timeline and approach by the Employer with respect to the processing of a grievance raised by the Worker, which she submits was inadequate. The Employer disputes the Worker’s claims, and submits that it made concerted efforts to investigate the grievances raised, including on two separate occasions appointing an independent investigator. It submits that on the first occasion, the Worker chose to have her grievance included in a broader process that was being conducted by an external third party body; and that on the second occasion, the person against whom the Worker had complained resigned, and the process was paused.

This dispute relates to a delay in dealing with a grievance raised by the Worker.

It is further submitted that when it was dealt with, it was not dealt with properly.

It is submitted that the grievance procedure was stopped with no reason given, and that it was the independent investigator who had been appointed who informed the Worker that it was being stopped. Issues in relation to communication were particularly highlighted.

It is further submitted that the Respondent has not complied with their own grievance policies or procedures. The Worker is seeking a recommendation for compensation.

The Employer submits that an investigation against the CEO was carried out properly and in line with procedures, by the appointed person DOB, who was a proper investigator, and a proper investigation was conducted.

It was submitted that the Complainant raised her grievance in July 2019, the investigator was appointed in August 2019, that the delay was on the part of the Worker, who instead opted to engage with a different process being conducted by an external body, and opted to have her grievance dealt with as part of that process.

In 2021, a subsequent complaint was raised by the Worker. There were some complications with that. An external investigator (a Barrister) was appointed, and she engaged with the Worker. Various notes pertaining to that were included as part of her submissions to the WRC. That investigation was not concluded – the investigation did not proceed, as the CEO left the employment of the Employer.

The organisation then focused on complaints against the Chair and the Board. There were other issues also ongoing within the organisation, including significant restructuring. The Worker was made redundant during that process, and she is also no longer part of the employment of the Employer.

It is submitted that proceeding with the investigation, at that point, would have constituted a further expense. It was emphasised that the Worker was not in the employment of the Employer and that any investigation would have proved difficult, in circumstances where the CEO – the person against whom the Worker had raised the grievance - had resigned. The investigation was not concluded. It was suspended in November, prior to the Worker being notified she was at risk of redundancy. It was suspended, rather than concluded.

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

I find that the initial grievance was acted on, when raised. The Worker had no objection to the investigator appointed, and initially engaged in that process, prior to electing to have her grievance dealt with, as part of a broader process, being undertaken by a third-party body.

In relation to the second grievance raised, again an independent investigator was appointed, and the Worker engaged with her. However, the process appears to have been paused. Then, the person against whom the Worker had raised the grievance resigned.

I accept that communication from the Employer to the Worker in respect of this investigation, that it was being paused and why it was being paused, seems to have fallen short.

Shortly thereafter, the Worker was notified that her role was ‘at risk’ of redundancy.

Neither party work for the Employer anymore – the CEO against whom the Worker complained resigned, and the Worker’s role was made redundant as part of a significant restructuring.

I find for the Worker and recommend that the Employer pay her €2,000 in full and final settlement of this dispute.

Grievance raised; Employer’s response; Independent investigator; Time-lines;