Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

An Occupational Health Practitioner

A National Health Provider

Representatives

  Self-represented

Internal Employee Relations Manager

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 - 00001826

29/09/2023

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The workers issue that she took a grievance relating to how she was dismissed and how she was treated around that dismissal. She outlined that the grievance related, in part, to a senior manager but that the grievance was considered by a person who reported to that senior manager.

She took grave exception to how she was treated by the employer and asserted that it was inhuman and cruel to treat somebody like that after they had been working with them for 15 years. She noted that she worked with the employer under two separate contracts, one for one day a month which ran for 15 years and the second which was a specific purpose contract, dealing with matters concerned with COVID-19. 

She did not dispute that one contract was a fixed purpose contract but noted that she was let go prior to that purpose having been concluded.  She also did not dispute that the employer had the right to terminate the other contract, even though there was never any written form of contract but took exception to the manner in which this was undertaken.

She outlined how she took a grievance in accordance with the grievance procedure but noted that the initial report was written by a person who was junior to the person she was complaining about. She also took exception to the manner in which her appeal was dealt with in that it was not dealt with at all, but she was simply referred to the WRC to exercise her right of appeal.

The employer outlined that the workers grievance was considered fully and, although initially putting forward that she did not take an appeal, noted that she had taken an appeal and that it was dealt with.

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

Documentation was submitted by both parties to this dispute; however, I note that the grievance procedure was not amongst the documents submitted.

Having considered the issues put forward by both the worker and the employer, I conclude that although the grievance was considered and a substantive report was provided to the worker, the fact that the grievance was dealt with by a person subordinate to the person complained of gives an appearance of bias to the consideration of the grievance.  Having regard to the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (under S.I. 146/2000), I am not satisfied that the workers grievance has been fairly examined and processed.

The worker was informed that she had the right to appeal matters and was given a contact point to do so. Although she referred an appeal for consideration, the request itself was quite brief. However, the original grievance was quite detailed and should have given the appeals officer a certain amount of material to consider. Additionally, it was open for the appeals officer to request a more detailed appeal from the worker.

In the circumstances the appeals officer gave the worker a response that was both derisory and inadequate, simply pawning off her responsibilities to consider an appeal to the WRC.

The employer is a national body with resources available to it, and staffing levels that would enable fair consideration at both first stage and appeal by a party unconnected with the dispute. I cannot understand how a two-paragraph letter referring the worker to the WRC amounts to an appeal in any sense of the word or of any procedure. The Code of Practice does not require an appeals process but it does require that grievances are handled in accordance with the principals of natural justice and fairness (Section 3.1.).  Where there are shortcomings in the initial consideration of a grievance, an appeals process provides the opportunity to rectify any deficiencies, perceived or otherwise that may arise.

In the circumstances outlined by the worker and the employer, I conclude that the employer has fallen far short of what is required by the Code of Practice.

IR dispute – grievance procedure – Code of Practice under SI 146/2000 – recommendation of compensation