LCR22936

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00039183 (CA-00050775 (IR-SC-00000292))

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 7 November 2023 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 27 February 2024.

RECOMMENDATION:

The matter before the Court concerns a dispute about the application of the employer’s sick pay scheme as it was applied to the worker, which gave rise to an alleged unlawful deduction of €609 from the worker’s wages.

The Adjudication Officer did not find in favour of the worker’s claim and held that, notwithstanding the fact that the Worker had engaged in correspondence with the Employer about the matter in dispute, he was obliged to exhaust the internal grievance policy prior to the referral of his complaint to the WRC.

The Employer raised preliminary matters about the Court’s jurisdiction to investigate this dispute. It asserts that the Court should not investigate a trade dispute in circumstances where (i) the internal grievance procedure was not properly utilised or exhausted by the worker, (ii) the nature of the complaint is a collective issue impacting on a body of workers, and (iii) a complaint about a wrongful deduction of wages is more appropriately addressed by submitting a complaint under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.

SIPTU rejected the employer’s position and submitted that (i) the internal grievance procedures was utilised prior to referring the dispute to the Workplace Relations Commission, (ii) the matter is not a collective issue applying to a body of workers and no complaints have arisen from other part time workers in relation to this type of issue, and (iii) the worker is entitled to process any complaint about a workplace dispute under section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act.

SIPTU referred the Court to various correspondence between the parties in support of its position that the internal grievance procedure was fully utilised prior to referring the dispute to the WRC.

In September 2021, SIPTU on behalf of the worker sought a review of his sick pay benefits during 2020. The employer replied in December 2021 providing the details requested. In February 2022, SIPTU wrote to say that no explanation was provided to explain why deductions continued to be made after May 2020 when the worker returned to work. A Staff Officer replied to say that the deductions were made as per the employer’s standard procedures. SIPTU escalated the matter to a Senior Executive Officer who replied to say that the procedure was followed correctly, and in accordance with social welfare procedure.

SIPTU’s position is that the correspondence between the parties constituted a valid grievance in line with the policy, and that in circumstances where it received a definitive response on the matter in dispute, it was entitled to refer the matter to the WRC for adjudication.

The employer’s position is that it applied the correct, agreed and accepted sick pay entitlement to the worker. It accepts that queries were raised on the workers behalf about his illness benefits in 2020. It replied with an explanation to those queries, but rejects that a formal grievance was ever raised.

The Court has given careful consideration to the submission made at the hearing.

The Court notes that there is an established and agreed grievance procedure in place for addressing workplace grievances and complaints, and that all employees are obliged to comply with that policy.

This Court has consistently upheld the well-established principle of utilising agreed procedures in place to resolved workplace issues.

In the view of the Court the Worker did not raise a formal grievance under the Grievance Policy and Procedure.

In the Court’s view it is regrettable that there was not better communication between the parties at local level. Had the worker received an adequate explanation for the deduction made to his wages, the matter might have been resolved at that point. Had the union informed the employer of its intention to refer the matter to the WRC under the grievance procedure, the employer might have had an opportunity to investigate and address the matter as a formal grievance before the matter was referred externally.

The Court notes that the Worker retired on the grounds of ill health on 2 February 2023. The Employer confirmed that in such circumstances the grievance procedure is no longer available to address any outstanding issues that remain in dispute.

Having regard to all of the circumstance of this case, the Court recommends that the employer pay the worker the sum of €350 as a goodwill gesture in full and final settlement of this matter.

The Court so recommends.

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

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Garrett O'Grady, Court Secretary.