Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00001768
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | An Academic | An Academic Institution |
Representatives | Marie O'Connor SIPTU | Employee Relations Manager (Internal) |
Dispute(s):
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 - 00001768 | 12/09/2023 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Date of Hearing: 17/01/2024
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended) following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute.
Background:
The worker has been employed as an academic for the past twenty years. 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. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The worker was the subject of a grievance taken by one of his colleagues. The matter was heard, and the decision was taken in regard to that grievance which the worker was not happy with. When he raised his disquiet with the human resources section, he was informed that he would have to pursue a grievance of his own to make a complaint about the previous grievance procedure. He noted that there were procedural and evidential gaps that arrived at an outcome that was unfavourable towards him. He appealed this but was not satisfied with the outcome of the appeal. He noted that two charges against him were upheld, one of which was never dealt with. He also noted that although he was informed of the decision of the grievance process, he was not provided with any minutes in relation to the process, procedure or meetings that impacted on the outcome. The worker noted that the outcome had a direct impact on his academic standing and amounted to a disciplinary action although he was never subject to a disciplinary procedure. He submitted that the disciplinary sanction could not be allowed to stand. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The worker was the subject of a grievance taken by one of his colleagues. The matter was heard, and the decision was taken in regards to that grievance which the worker was not happy with. When he raised his disquiet with the human resources section, he was informed that he would have to pursue a grievance of his own to make a complaint about the previous grievance procedure. He noted that there were procedural and evidential gaps that arrived at an outcome that was unfavourable towards him. He appealed this but was not satisfied with the outcome of the appeal he noted that two charges against him were upheld and although he was informed of this decision he was not provided with any minutes in relation to the process, procedure or meetings that impacted on the outcome. The worker noted that the outcome had a direct impact on his academic standing and amounted to a disciplinary action although he was never subject to a disciplinary procedure. He submitted that the disciplinary sanction could not be allowed to stand. The employer noted that the worker was given the chance to respond to the allegations made against him, is result and noted that his written response was shared with the grievance board. As regards bypassing the grievance stage one, the employer noted that this was not raised at any earlier time prior to the WRC proceedings. The employer noted that mediation was offered to the worker on a number of occasions, but he refused to engage with the mediation process. The employer noted that when the worker had referred to a single instance of interpersonal difficulties that this did not reflect the reality which human resources was dealing with. It noted that rather than it being one single incident there were ongoing interpersonal difficulties between the worker and one of his academic colleagues which had not been resolved to date. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. Having regard to all the relevant information presented by both parties in relation to this dispute, it is obvious that there are ongoing interpersonal difficulties amongst the academic staff where they worker is based. The worker appears to be either oblivious to the ongoing difficulties, or wilfully disregarding those difficulties. At the same time the employer's procedures leave a lot to be desired. The grievance procedure, as submitted, is sparse and lacking in rigour when it comes to the fairness of its procedures. Several steps were bypassed in the processing of both grievances including some which had an impact on the fairness of the procedure. Conclusions were drawn by the employer which were not the logical outcome of any meetings, from the limited notes available for those meetings. The person who heard Stage 2 of the grievance procedure was the person responsible for handing out the sanctions that ultimately arose from the proceedings. Although the grievance procedure makes no mention of a disciplinary sanction, the sanction imposed upon the worker was very much disciplinary in nature but did not arise from a disciplinary proceeding. Arising from my consideration of the oral and written submissions, I am making a number of recommendations which will impact on both parties with a view to enabling them to return to a productive working relationship in the near future. The employer noted that its grievance procedure was currently being updated and that it welcomed any recommendation as to how it may be improved. The worker and his representative also welcomed any recommendations that enabled this long running dispute to be laid to rest. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
The first recommendation is that the employer should ensure that a note-taker is appointed to maintain proper notes of meetings held under the grievance procedure.
The second recommendation is that the employer should amend it procedures to enable it to engage outside HR expertise, where and when necessary.
The third recommendation is that the worker should engage with the mediation process offered by the employer without any delay, in order to resolve the ongoing difficulties that are arising in the workplace.
The fourth recommendation is that the grievance procedure should not give rise directly to a disciplinary sanction. If it is considered necessary to pursue disciplinary matters against an employee, the grievance procedure is not an appropriate avenue, particularly where a disciplinary procedure exists.
The fifth recommendation is that the disciplinary sanction must be removed and that two charges that arose as a result of a fundamentally flawed grievance procedure should be set aside. If the worker is found to be unable to engage in an academic process, then an alternative route should be found to include his input.
The final recommendation is that the mediation process should proceed without any undue delay, within a matter of weeks rather than months, as the matter has gone on for too long at this point. Matters initially came to a head almost five years ago.
Dated: 19/01/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Industrial Relations – grievance procedures – disciplinary sanctions – mediation to ensure ongoing working relationship |