ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969

Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00001032

Parties:

	Worker	Employer
Anonymised Parties	Store Manager	Retail Company

Dispute:

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 - 00001032	20/01/2023

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham

Date of Hearing: 15/04/2024

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 submits that he made a complaint and the perpetrator who was the cause of the complaint was put in charge of it.

Summary of Workers Case:

The Representative of the Worker made written submissions regarding a range of complaints and protected disclosures regarding the Worker. In the hearing, it was submitted that all of these complaints are also referred under the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended). Some of the complaints and submissions centre around what occurred after a loss prevention audit was held in the store when the Worker was on holiday leave in August 2022. The submissions also cover the allegation that the Worker has been harassed and intimidated since he raised an issue regarding a disciplinary process and a colleague in 2018, and that he continues to be harassed by his area manager.

Summary of Employer’s Case:

The Complainant is a longstanding and valued employee. He has worked with the Employer since 9 January 2005. He is a trusted store manager, this has been made clear to him on a number of occasions. As a result of his hard work, the store has been a consistently top performing store. From time to time, the Worker raises matters which he considers significant. All such matters are investigated by the Employer. For the avoidance of doubt, the Employer has no problem with him raising points of concern where he feels that is merited. In fact in March 2022, he was put forward for a merit increase / pay award. It is clear as pleaded in this case, that many of the issues relate to The Worker’s area manager. It should be noted, that throughout the Worker’s employment, he has had approximately seven area managers. He has raised issues with all of his prior managers, bar one. All issues raised were investigated, formally and informally, and support provided to him where it was felt this would assist him. The issues would be considered everyday occurrences which would normally be dealt with through conversation.

In November 2022, he raised a formal grievance against his manager which was investigated and not upheld. The Worker did not appeal that decision.

Conclusions:

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

There is a long list of complaints and grievances which pertain to the Worker and in this case, because he specifically referred to a complaint made and the “perpetrator”, I confine my findings to the grievance submitted to his Employer in November 2022.

The genesis of that grievance was that a store loss prevention audit was conducted in August 2022, the outcome of which the Worker strongly disagreed. The Worker’s area manager advised him to call the manager who carried out the audit and explain his position. The Worker took exception to this approach, deeming it to be outside procedures. The dispute led to a formal grievance. The Worker submitted the grievance on 11th October 2022 where he claimed breach of contract in dealing with a complaint he submitted on 12th September 2022 to his area manager and regional manager and harassment he received from his area manager.

This grievance was investigated and an outcome given to him on 11th November 2022.

The outcome was that his grievance was unfounded. The Investigator found that it was not unreasonable for the area manager to ask him to speak to the loss prevention auditor and raise his concerns. That report also informed the Worker that the area manager informed her that the Worker runs a good store and he wasn’t overly concerned with the findings of the report. I note the Employer here holds the Worker in high esteem and has recently proposed a merit pay rise and has confirmed that the Store consistently gets top grades (White Audits). He has been commended by the area manager on many occasions as submitted by the Employer in their written submission (03 June 2022, 13 June 2023, 24 July 2023).

As a Manager in a busy, successful retail store, the Worker should accept that his Employer has recognised his work and he should put the disputes he had with their handling of past issues behind him. If some form of further mediation or facilitation will be helpful he could consider this although it did not seem to work in the past.

At this point, I recommend the Worker draws a line under his various disputes and complaints and I have no further recommendation except to consider mediation to try and help draw that line.

Recommendation:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

I recommend the Worker draws a line under his various disputes and complaints and I have no further recommendation except to consider mediation to try and help draw that line.

Dated: 30th May 2024