LCR22934

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00042270 (CA-00052935).

BACKGROUND:

The Employer appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 12 October 2023 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. On 4 September 2023 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation: “Having regard to all the oral and written submissions in relation to this matter, my recommendation is that compensation of €8,000 is warranted in relation to this matter.’’ A Labour Court hearing took place on 23 February 2024.

DECISION:

The dispute before the Court is about the employer’s refusal to hear the worker’s grievance.

In November 2021, the worker lodged a complaint which was investigated in line with the grievance procedure. In February 2022, a finding issued in favour of the worker.

The worker lodged a further complaint under the grievance procedure in August 2022. She set out her complaint in a comprehensive letter under four headings as follows:

(i) Misuse of HSE Grievance and Disciplinary Procedure 2004
(ii) Misuse of HSE Dignity at Work Policy 2009
(iii) Confirmed use of unfair procedure and processes
(iv) Delay in the implementation of a Grievance outcome

The employer declined to hear the second grievance submitted in August 2022.

The matter was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) in September 2022. The Adjudication Officer found that three of the four complaints were fully investigated as party of the first grievance process which concluded in February 2022, while the fourth complaint constituted a new and separate grievance. The Adjudication Officer found that the employer did not provide an explanation for failing to hear that grievance and awarded €8,000 as compensation. The employer has appealed that recommendation.

At the hearing, the parties confirmed that the matter before the Court was a dispute about the employer’s failure to hear the second grievance.

The employer submits that the Adjudication Officer erred in finding that no explanation was given to the worker about the refusal to investigate her complaint. Its position is that no delay arose in implementing the first grievance process outcome which was fully actioned, In addition. the grievance procedure does not provide for monetary compensation awards to be made in response to complaints about how grievances are handled.

The union’s position is that the grievance procedure is an established and agreed policy in place for addressing workplace grievances and complaints. The procedure does not allow management to decide what grievance they will or will not process.

The Court has considered the oral and written submissions of the parties at the hearing, and the correspondence exchanged between the parties prior the referral of the compliant externally.

A grievance is defined under the grievance policy as “a complaint which an employee has concerning his or her terms and conditions of employment, working environment or working relationships.”  The Court was told that the procedure does not include a screening process to determine what constitutes a grievance or otherwise.

From the correspondence exchanged between the parties it appears to the Court that the employer formed a view that the worker was seeking compensation for the outcome and impact of a previous process and decided that matter did not constitute a grievance under the policy. The union, for its part, took issue with the employer’s communications, and in doing so failed to clarify the nature of the complaint in dispute before referring the matter to the WRC.

In the Court’s view it is regrettable that there was not better communication between the parties at local level to clarify the nature of the complaint. It is always preferable that workplace disputes are resolved locally wherever possible; instead, this issue became a protracted one for all concerned.

This Court has consistently upheld the well-established principle of utilising agreed procedures in place to resolve workplace issues. In the view of the Court, had the nature of this dispute been investigated and clarified at local level, it may have been resolved at that point.

Having regard to all the circumstances of this case, the recommends that the employer make an award of €4,000 to the worker in full and final settlement of the matter.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
TH	______________________
6 March 2024	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Therese Hickey, Court Secretary.