Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

An Employer

Representatives

  Self-Represented

Ruth Mylotte B.L. instructed by Jason McMenamin of A & L Goodbody LLP

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 - 00001574

24/07/2023

The Worker has been employed by the Employer since the 28th November 2022 as a BIM/3D Modeller. The Worker referred her dispute to the Workplace Relation Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the WRC”) on the 24th July 2023. She accepted that she did not exhaust the internal grievance procedures at her workplace before the dispute was referred to the WRC. The Employer submitted that its internal grievance procedures should have been implemented and exhausted by the Worker before referring the dispute to the WRC.

The Worker accepted that she did not  exhaust the internal grievance procedures at her workplace before she referred her dispute to the WRC on the 24th July 2023. After she referred her dispute to the WRC she engaged with the Employer and participated in the internal investigation under the Dignity at Work policy and she outlined her belief that the internal procedures had been exhausted before the matter came on for hearing.

The Employer’s representative outlined that the Worker had not raised any internal grievance in advance of referring her dispute to the WRC on the 24th July 2023 and that the internal procedures had not been exhausted. The Employer submitted that its internal grievance procedures should have been implemented and exhausted by the Worker before referring the dispute to the WRC. 

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

The Worker referred her dispute to the WRC on the 24th July 2023. She accepted that she did not implement or exhaust the Employer’s internal grievance procedures prior to referring her dispute to the WRC. She gave evidence that after she referred her dispute to the WRC she engaged with the Employer and participated in the internal investigation under the Dignity at Work policy and she outlined her belief that the internal procedures had been exhausted prior to the matter coming on for hearing. Initially the Worker stated that she was surprised that the final Report had not been furnished to her as the Employer was not awaiting comments from her. However, in response to questions from the Adjudication Officer the Worker accepted that on the 13th and 14th November 2023 she asked the Employer for more time to consider the draft Report, that to date she had not furnished the Employer with her comments on the draft Report and that the Employer was awaiting confirmation from the Worker’s medical practitioner that she was fit to engage in the investigation process before it proceeded any further.  The Worker also accepted that a final Report had not issued to her.  The Worker confirmed that in November 2023 she went on certified sick leave and that she is certified unfit to work until the 4th February 2024.

The Employer’s representative submitted that the Employer first became aware of the Worker’s grievances when she submitted her dispute to the WRC. On the 25th July 2023 the Employer received a copy of the Worker’s WRC complaint form. Upon receipt of the said complaint form the Employer arranged for the complaints set out therein to be investigated. The Employer’s Technical Director was appointed to investigate the complaints under the Employer’s Dignity at Work policy. By e-mail dated the 31st July 2023 the Employer’s HR department notified the Worker that the Employer had received the WRC complaint form and that the Technical Director would meet her to explain the next steps. The Worker was informed that an investigation meeting would take place on the 2nd August 2023 and that the Worker had the right to be accompanied at this meeting. She was provided with a letter of the 31st July 2023, the Dignity at Work policy and was notified of the details of the Employer’s Employee Assistance Program.

The complaints raised by the Worker were investigated by the Technical Director and on the 6th November 2023 the Technical Director met with the Worker and a copy of the draft Report was issued to her. At this meeting the Worker was invited to furnish the Technical Director with any comments she had in respect to the draft Report within a period of five days. This was confirmed by letter dated the 8th November 2023 and a further meeting with the Technical Director was proposed for the 13th November 2023. Subsequently the Worker was provided with the draft Report in her preferred format. The meeting took place on the 13th November 2023 at which the Worker sought additional time to provide her comments on the draft Report. This request was granted and the Worker was informed that she could supply her comments by the 15th November 2023. By e-mail dated the 14th November 2023 the Worker indicated that she would not be in a position to supply her comments by the 15th November 2023 and would need a further period of a few weeks in which to reply. The Employer agreed to the Worker’s request for more time to consider the draft Report. Thereafter the Worker was on sick leave and annual leave and on the 26th November 2023 she was certified as unfit for work until the 4th February 2024.

The internal investigation has not been concluded, the Employer is awaiting the Worker’s comments on the draft Report  and the final Report has not issued while the Worker is certified as unfit for work. The Employer submitted that its internal grievance procedures should have been implemented and exhausted by the Worker before referring the dispute to the WRC.

It is well established that before referring a grievance about any matter to the WRC an employee must exhaust the internal procedures at their workplace. In Gregory Geoghegan trading as TAPS v. A Worker INT1014 the Labour Court held:

“The Court is not prepared to insert itself into the procedural process in a situation where the dispute procedures have been bypassed.”

I conclude that as the internal procedures have not been exhausted therefore I cannot insert myself into the procedural process. In the circumstances, I conclude that the Worker’s dispute is not well founded.