CD/24/92 | DECISION NO. LCR23003 |
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 2015
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
AND
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY IMO)
DIVISION:
Chairman: | Mr Haugh |
Employer Member: | Mr Marie |
Worker Member: | Ms Treacy |
SUBJECT:
Appeal of Adjudication Officer Recommendation No's: ADJ-00048096 (CA-00059130, SC-00001826)
BACKGROUND:
The Employer appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 12 March 2024 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 18 June 2024.
DECISION:
This matter came before the Court by way of an appeal on behalf of the Health Service Executive (‘the Employer’) from a Recommendation of an Adjudication Officer under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. The Adjudication Officer found in the Worker’s favour and recommended that she receive compensation of €4,000.00 for the deficiencies in the manner in which the Employer had handled the Worker’s grievance.
The Factual Background
The Worker is a qualified and experienced medical doctor. She was engaged on a part-time basis by the Employer, pursuant to a contract of services, as an occupational health professional between 2008 and March 2023. Separately, the Worker was employed by the Employer pursuant to a part-time contract of service during the Covid-19 pandemic between March 2020 and 30 March 2023.
The Worker invoked the Employer’s Grievance Procedure, at Stage 2, on 27 March 2023 in response to the decision to terminate her employment. An outcome issued on 3 May 2023. The grievance was not upheld. The Worker was advised that she had a right to “pursue the matter in accordance with the Grievance Procedure”. She was further advised that she should write to the National Director of Human Resources if she wished to move to Stage 3 of the Procedure. The Worker did so by email dated 4 May 2023.
The Worker received a replying letter from the National Director of Human Resources dated 29 May 2023 which stated as follows:
“Dear Dr [X]
I refer to your email of 4th May. I am sorry that you are disappointed with the outcome of your recent grievance hearing. The purpose of the HSE’s Grievance Procedure is to enable employees raise any complaints concerning work-related matters so that the issue may be addressed promptly and as close as possible to point of origin.
The HSE’s Grievance Procedure is a staged process and allows appeals where a person is unhappy with the outcome of a hearing, culminating in an appeal to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) at stage 4. This is the appropriate procedure for dealing with the complaints you raised.
You may now wish to appeal the findings of Ms [Y’s] report to the WRC.”
Discussion and Decision
It is abundantly clear to the Court that in declining to consider the substance of the Worker’s Stage 3 grievance and by advising her that she could appeal the Stage 2 outcome directly to the Workplace Relations Commission, the National Director of Human Resources failed to apply the Employer’s own Grievance Procedure.
The Court finds that the appeal fails and the Recommendation of the Adjudication Officer is upheld.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court | |
Alan Haugh | |
AR | ______________________ |
2nd July 2024 | Deputy Chairman |
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Aidan Ralph, Court Secretary.