LCR23013

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00046585 (CA-00057539 IR-SC-0001511).

BACKGROUND:

This is a Double Appeal.

The Employer appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 8 March 2024 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 20 March 2024 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

On 14 February 2024 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:

“I recommend that the Employer pay the Worker the sum of €5,000 in respect of avoidable delays arising from this process.’’

A Labour Court hearing took place on 16 July 2024.

DECISION:

The matter before the Court concerns a claim for compensation arising from delays in investigating workplace complaints made by the Worker.

SIPTU, on behalf of the Worker, confirmed that its appeal primarily relates to the timeline in which the Council conducted and concluded an investigation after the Worker lodged a formal complaint against a number of colleagues on 19 November 2019. Two external investigators were appointed to investigate three separate complaints and the final Investigation report, which issued on 14 July 2022, did not uphold his complaints. An appeal outcome report issued on 24 March 2023 and did not uphold the complaints. SIPTU submits that the delays in progressing the complaints over this extended period had a detrimental effect on the Worker’s work and home life.

The Council contend that it has no case to answer in relation to the timeline for conducting the investigation. It submits that the investigation was undertaken in accordance with the Council’s grievance policy and procedure and that the process was independent, robust, and fair. It accepts that the process was a lengthy one, however, it submits that it was a significant undertaking and a complex investigation involving several complaints, multiple parties, and a number of witnesses.

The Court has given careful consideration to the oral and written submissions.

An amount of correspondence exchanged between the parties was shared with the Court.

It is accepted that the Worker raised several complaints against named individuals relating to workplace practices that took place over an extended period. There is an established and agreed grievance policy and procedure in place for addressing workplace grievances and complaints in the employment, and the Court finds that the Employer conducted a full and thorough investigation of the Worker’s complaints in line with the grievance policy and procedure.

It is in the interest of all parties involved that investigations of this nature are conducted in a timely manner. In the Court’s view, that did not happen in this case.

A significant factor in the delay in progressing the investigation in a timely manner can be attributed to Covid-19 restrictions, which resulted in delays in arranging face to face meetings. This was clearly outside the control of both parties. The Court notes that all meetings were conducted on a face-to-face basis when restrictions lifted, and none were held using remote technology. 

Other delays were due to the actions of both parties at different times. It appears that the Worker’s formal grievance, drafted and signed on 19 November 2019, was never received by the Council.  Neither party could account for this error. When the formal grievance was confirmed in January 2020, it took several months of to-ing and fro-ing by the Council to clarify certain details in relation to aspects of the complaints. The Worker has been absent on certified sick leave since 1 May 2018, and the Council rightly sought confirmation that the Worker was fit to attend meetings.

Once external investigators were appointed in October 2020, the investigation commenced.  The final investigation report issued in July 2022, some 21 months later, and did not uphold the Worker’s complaints. It is clear that the investigation was not concluded in a timely manner and that various factors contributed to the delays in progressing the investigation at different times.

Having regard to the specific circumstance of this case, the Court recommends that the employer pay the worker the sum of €2,000 as a goodwill gesture in full and final settlement of this matter.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
TH	______________________
23 July 2024	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Therese Hickey, Court Secretary.