Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Employee

Health Service

Representatives

Mes. Deirdre Canty, SIPTU

Self-Represented

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 - 00001595

01/08/2023

The Worker is a long standing employee of the Employer. On 1st August 2023, the Worker referred the present dispute to the Commission. Following the Employer’s failure to object to the investigation of the same within the prescribed timeframe, the matter proceeded to hearing.

A hearing in relation to this matter was convened for, and finalised on, 5th April 2024. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced by either party in the course of the hearing.

Both parties issued submission in advance of the hearing, these were expanded upon and contested by the opposing side in the course of the hearing.

By submission, the Employer raised a preliminary issue as to jurisdiction. Given the nature of the same, this will be considered following the substantive matter.

By submission, the Worker stated that she raised a grievance in accordance with the Respondent’s internal procedures on 12th April 2019. The first meeting in respect of the same was held on 29th November 2021, some two years and seven months later, with an outcome issuing on 20th December 2021. The Complainant duly appealed the same in accordance with the Employer’s internal procedures, with an outcome in relation to the same issuing on 15th June 2022. Again, the Complainant sought to appeal same to the next stage of the relevant internal procedure.

Whilst this process was underway, the Worker referred a complaint under the Employer’ dignity at work procedures on 12th April 2019.

By submission, the Worker submitted that both above-mentioned processes have effectively stalled, with no further developments in respect of the same for a period of 14 months. She further submitted that no substantive investigation has occurred in respect of the dignity at work complaint.

Having regard to the foregoing, the Worker submitted that the Employer is clearly in breach of their own procedures regarding the timely processing of complaints. In this respect they requested that all meeting be convened as a matter of priority and that the Worker be compensated for the delays in the process.   

By submission, the Employer submitted that no recommendation be issued in relation to this dispute in circumstances whereby the Worker had failed to exhaust the relevant internal procedures. Notwithstanding the same, the Employer accepted that the internal process had been subject to some delays, however they submitted that these arose due to matters outside of the Employer’s control.

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

The present dispute involves and allegation by the Worker that her Employer failed to investigate set of complaints referred by her within a reasonable timeframe. By response, the Employer submitted that the matter is not appropriate for such investigation when the Worker had not exhausted the relevant internal procedures.

Regarding the preliminary issue raised by the Employer, they are correct in their assertion that the Commission, and the Labour Court, have been reluctant to intervene in a process that has not finalised internally. However, while it the case that the Complainant has not exhausted the internal procedures, the dispute itself relates to an allegation of a failure on the part of the Employer to convene a hearing in good time, as opposed to any issue with the outcome itself. In such circumstances the Employer’s alleged failures in this regard are the subject of a valid trade dispute, and should form the basis of a recommendation from this forum.

Regarding the substantive issue, it is apparent that it relates to a complaint that was raised in 2019 and was remains incomplete by the date of referral of the dispute, over four years later. Such an extraordinary delay is clearly inexcusable and represents a clear violation of fair procedures on the part of the Employer. The Employer, to their credit, did acknowledge the same and gave a clear undertaking to convene a stage three hearing at the earliest opportunity, and presumably in advance of this recommendation.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, even if the matter raised by the Complainant was to be dealt with a expeditiously as possible, the Worker would still have still have encountered a extraordinary delay in having this matter completed, and surely will encounter difficult in securing relevant witnesses and evidence, in addition to the undoubted issues regarding her own recollection of events.

Having regard to the totality of foregoing points, I recommenced that the Employer convene as meeting within two weeks of the date bellow, in order to appraise the Worker of the current status of her complaints and the proposed manner by which the Employer intends to finalise the same. In addition to the foregoing, I recommend that the Employer pay the worker the sum of €3,000 in respect of the delays experienced in respect of the complaints themselves.

Delay, internal procedures, compensation