ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00002205
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Worker | A Local Authority |
Representatives | Jemma Mackey SIPTU | Keith Irvine Local Government Management Agency (LGMA) |
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 - 00002205 | 12/02/2024 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Date of Hearing: 21/05/2024
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’s Union submitted a complaint under the industrial relations act on the 12th of February 2024 stating that he lodged a grievance on the 29th of May 2023 and that his employer was ignoring his requests to have it investigated. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The Worker’s Union did not make submissions. Instead, they requested an adjournment so that local processes could be exhausted. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The LGMA made detailed submissions on behalf of the Employer. The Worker submitted his grievance on the 29th of May 2023 and indicated he would avail of mediation. The Employer appointed and mediator and sought to have the matter resolved informally. The other party to the grievance indicated that they would not engage with this. When this became apparent the mediation was cancelled. The Worker outlined by email in September that he wanted the matter dealt with by way of formal investigation. The Employer immediately moved to appoint an external investigator. When they sent an email notifying the Worker about the appointment of an external investigator the Worker’s Union official, (who was not Ms Mackey) sent a replying email notifying them they were unavailable and no further action should be taken. The Employer paused matters at the Union’s request. The Employer opposed any request for an adjournment. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
I am more than a little confused by the actions of SIPTU in this matter. I see no reason to grant their request for an adjournment. The role of the WRC is not to sit outside and monitor ongoing processes via regular hearings and adjournments. That would seem to be the position we would be in if I granted their request for an adjournment. I do not believe that delaying an investigation any further would be of benefit to the parties. Long running grievance investigations can be extremely damaging to the working environment. I make no criticism of the Employer for the delay in investigating these matters. It does not appear to be their fault. However, now that Worker has clarified that an investigation should take place it ought to take place without any further delay. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I recommend that the Employer appoint an investigator for the purposes of investigating the Worker’s grievance within 4 weeks of this recommendation.
Dated: 29-05-2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Key Words:
|