Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Employee

Employer

Representatives

Rachel Barry Arthur Cox

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 - 00000281

17/05/2022

The Complainant is seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969  and has submitted that his grievance was not investigated (CA- IR - SC - 00000281).

Much of this evidence was in conflict between the parties and in certain aspects was of a particularly sensitive nature. Accordingly,  have taken the time to carefully review all the evidence both written and oral.  I have noted the respective position of the parties.   I am not required to provide a line for line rebuttal of the evidence and submissions that I have rejected or deemed superfluous to the main findings.  I am guided by the reasoning in Faulkner v. The Minister for Industry and Commerce [1997] E.L.R. 107 where it was held “…minute analysis or reasons are not required to be given by administrative tribunals...the duty on administrative tribunals to give reasons in their decisions is not a particularly onerous one.  Only broad reasons need be given…”.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties under statute.  I can confirm I have fulfilled my obligation to make all relevant inquiries into these complaints.

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent as cabin crew on the 13th March 2012. The Complainant has been on a career break since 21st June 2021 and is due to return on the 26th May 2024.

In relation to the Industrial Relations Complaint, the Complainant submitted that he filed a formal grievance of bullying and harassment in March 2021 and there had been no investigation of same by April 2022. The Complainant explained that the alleged bullying and harassment resulted in him experiencing severe medical issues.

These Complaints were received by the Workplace Relations Commission on the 17th May 2022.

The Respondent accepts the background facts and the timeline in relation to the Complainant’s employment with the Respondent.

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant was afforded a formal process to consider any work related matters impacting upon him. The Respondent stated that the Complainant was met with and had opportunities to raise his complaint but he never articulated  concrete examples of this complaint in a manner that would allow the matter to be progressed. The Respondent submitted that all efforts to progress this matter had been exhausted been on them based on the information made available to them.

In particular, the Respondent submitted that the Respondent cannot generally get involved with personal disputes and/or relationship breakdowns where they arise between employees.  However, where information is provided to them that suggest that a workplace issue has arisen then it will be investigated. Such investigations are governed by their grievance procedure or, if applicable, it’s dignity and respect policies.

It is the Respondents position that no recommendations are required in relation to this dispute.

I have carefully listened to the evidence tendered and submissions made in the course of this hearing by both parties.

IR - SC - 00000281

In relation to disputes under the Industrial Relations Acts,  the Labour Court decision of Bord Gais Eireann -v- A Worker AD1377 aptly sets out my remit in relation to disputes regarding internal investigations ( and also extends to processes brought under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 )as follows: “It is not the function of the Court to form a view on the merits of complaints giving rise to those investigations nor can it substitute its views for those of the investigators appointed in either case. Rather, the role of the Court is to establish if the procedures used by the Company conformed to the generally accepted standard of fairness and objectivity that would normally be used in cases such as these.”

As already stated and as per the Labour Court’s position confirmed in Bord Gais Eireann -v- A Worker AD1377, my role in the context of a dispute relating to disciplinary action is confined to considering the reasonableness of procedures adopted in the particular circumstances, as opposed to placing myself in the role of the employer and making findings of fact in relation to the matters alleged.  I am further guided by S.I. No. 146/2000 - Industrial Relations Act, 1990 (Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures) requiring that the procedures for dealing with workplace disciplinary or grievance matters reflecting the varying circumstances of enterprises/organisations must comply with the general principles of natural justice and fair procedures.

In the circumstances of this matter, my role is not to substitute my views for those involved in dealing with this matter but to establish if the procedures adopted by the Respondent, in relation to the ongoing dispute, conformed to the generally accepted standard of fairness and objectivity that would normally be used in such cases.

I completely accept the bona fides of the Complainant, however, having examined the process in question and upon consideration of both parties evidence and submissions, I am satisfied that the Respondent conformed to the generally accepted standard of fairness and objectivity that would normally be used in such cases and accordingly. Accordingly, I make no recommendations in relation to this matter.