Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Healthcare Assistant

Healthcare Provider

Representatives

Self-Represented

No Appearance

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 - 00002283

20/02/2024

On 20th February 2024, the Worker referred a dispute within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Act to the Commission. Herein, she raised numerous allegations regarding the Employer’s failure to abide by their internal procedures in relation to the investigation of a significant inter-personal grievance raised on her behalf. She further alleged that the Employer sought to penalise her thereafter by unilaterally amending her shift patterns and place of work. In addition to the foregoing, the Worker submitted that the Employer subjected her to an unwarranted and unfair disciplinary process.

Following the Employer’s failure to object to the investigation of the dispute within the statutory timeframe permitted, the matter proceeded to hearing. Said hearing was convened for, and finalised on, 14th June 2024. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Employer at the hearing as scheduled.

In the weeks following the hearing, a representative for the Employer corresponded with the Commission. Herein, he submitted that while the notice of hearing had been issued to the Employer, certain issues in the manner by which the same was sent resulted in the communication being overlooked. As a consequence of the foregoing, the Employer was unaware of, and subsequently missed, the hearing date. On this basis, the Employer requested that the matter be adjourned and heard alongside other forthcoming complaints raised under alternative legislation involving the parties. While the Employer’s request has merit, particularly in light of the voluntary nature of involvement in such disputes and the practical nature by which the same tend to be investigated, this application is rendered somewhat moot given the conclusions outlined below.

Aside from the foregoing, no other preliminary issues were raised as to my jurisdiction to hear the dispute at any stage of the proceedings.

By submission, the Worker alleged that the Employer failed to abide by their own internal procedures in relation to the investigation of an inter-personal complaint raised by her in the course of her employment. In addition to the foregoing, the Worker submitted that the Employer penalised her by unilaterally amending her shift pattern and place of employment following the referral of said grievance. The Worker further submitted that the Employer imposed an unwarranted disciplinary sanction on her on spurious grounds. Given the poor treatment the Worker had received in the final year of her employment, she elected to terminate her contract of employment and considered herself to be constructively dismissed.  

In answer to a question posed by the Adjudicator, the Worker confirmed that she had submitted other complaints under alternative statutes in relation to the subject matter of the within dispute.

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Employer at the hearing as scheduled. While the Employer’s representative did request that the matter be relisted following the hearing, this application is denied in consideration of the conclusions outlined below.

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

Regarding the present dispute, the Worker has raised numerous allegations of unreasonable behaviour on the part of her former employer. Having had sight of the other complaints raised in this regard, it is apparent that the subject matter of the this dispute will overlap, almost entirely, with the subject matter of a set of justiciable complaints raised under employment rights legislation.

In the matter of Nua Healthcare Services Limited -v- A Worker LCR22758, the Labour Court held as follows,

“…noting in particular that the worker has elected to have the facts of the matter addressed in law, the Court concludes that there can be no value from a trade dispute resolution standpoint in the Court purporting to address the underlying facts which have given rise to this trade dispute as an industrial relations matter.”

More recently, in the matter of A Worker -v- Grant Engineering LCR22984, the Court held that,

“…it is inappropriate to conflate matters which form the substance of a series of justiciable complaints under law with matters described as a trade dispute in the voluntarist framework.”

Having regard to the foregoing authorities, I find that it would be likewise inappropriate to issue a recommendation in respect of a series of matters which will form the basis of forthcoming justiciable complaints. In so finding, I am mindful that the substantive complaints are currently listed for hearing and will, presumably, be fully ventilated in that forum.

Trade Dispute, Justiciable Complaint, Adjournment