ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00002428
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | Machine Operator | Healthcare Packaging Company |
Representatives | Self | Brian Kavanagh IBEC |
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 - 00002428 | 27/03/2024 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Date of Hearing: 06/06/2024
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended) following the referral of the dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute(s).
The matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
As this is a trade dispute under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 the hearing took place in private, and the parties are not named. The parties are referred to as “the Worker” and “the Employer”. Section 13(9)(c) of the Act provides that hearings shall be heard in private and accordingly, I direct that any information that might identify the parties within this recommendation should not be published.
The Worker attended the hearing, and she represented herself and was accompanied by a work colleague. The Employer was represented by Mr Brian Kavanagh, Ibec and two other representatives from the respondent.
I explained to both parties at the outset the way the hearing would proceed, and I clarified for the parties the role of an Adjudication Officer in an Industrial Relations dispute. I clarified that it is a voluntary process and that no formal evidence is taken. In that context there are no findings of fact made. I also clarified there were no complaints under any employment rights statute or any matter of law before me in this specific referral. I explained to the parties that I would be seeking information during the hearing in order to gain an understanding of the full extent of the issues giving rise to this dispute. At the end of the hearing both parties confirmed that they were satisfied that they were given an adequate opportunity to provide the hearing with all their relevant information.
Background:
The worker is employed as a machine operator with the employer. She is in that role since 2011. Her dispute arose following an incident in 2023 and she was not happy with the outcome of the investigation and appeal. As a result of this she had a number of issues which she believes are connected to this. The employer submits that the worker has been afforded fair procedures and that she has no longer has any basis for this dispute |
Summary of Workers Case:
The worker outlined that an incident arose on 15/09/2023 which she believes was based on a false allegation. This was dealt with on an informal basis. On 26/09/2023 the worker submitted a formal grievance in relation to a manager. This grievance was that she was prevented from doing shift changes or receiving overtime. The worker also wanted to appeal the outcome of the informal process. The worker believes that the way a manager spoke to her and about her was inappropriate. There was a protracted exchange of e mails and correspondent between the worker and the employer. The worker believes that as a result of all this she continues to have issues with what are known as “Floating Days”, shift swops, blocked access card, glove inserts and a failure of the employer to properly investigate her grievances. The worker maintains that she did outline her reasons for submitting an appeal of the investigation and she clarified that these were that the investigator did not speak to all witnesses, and she remains unhappy with the way she was spoken to by a manager. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The employer believes that they have investigated the worker’s two grievances. The first incident was dealt with informally and that should have been the end of the matter. The second incident was investigated, and the worker was afforded the opportunity to appeal but she never particularised the basis of her appeal. The glove inserts was resolved within 40 minutes. The “Floating Days” are always at the employer’s discretion and the card issue was due to a technical fault which was rectified. The employer explained that the complainant works six twelve-hour shifts in a seven-day cycle. There is no bar to the worker having shift swops and this was confirmed at the hearing by the employer’s senior manager. The respondent must be mindful of its duty of care to ensure that the worker does not exceed the maximum permitted hours or cause any disruption to the workflow. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. In advance of this hearing, I was presented with voluminous documentation which consisted of e mails, notes, minutes of meetings, amended minutes and other documentation. I do not intend to attempt to summarise all of these in this recommendation.
The role of an Adjudication Officer in an Industrial Relations dispute such as this one is to formulate a recommendation that will assist both parties to move forward. These are outlined below. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I am recommending that:
- a) the employer provide updated dignity at work training with all relevant manager
- b) the worker accept that any further investigation or appeal of her grievance
- c) the worker accepts the assurances given at the hearing from her employer in relation to shift swops and overtime
- d) the worker utilises the grievance procedure in the event that any incident in relation to dignity at work arises
- e) the worker give serious consideration to engaging with the Employee Assistance Programme as this is a confidential service and can be a useful support to her.
Dated: 19th of June 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Key Words:
Grievance investigation. |