Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Project Worker

A Housing Charity

Representatives

 SIPTU

Tiernan Lowey B.L. instructed by Hayes Solicitors LLP

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 - 00002136

17/01/2024

The within referral relates to the worker’s employment with the employer since 2017. There were a significant number of complaints raised by the worker throughout her employment as well as issues that were raised by the worker’s colleagues in respect of the worker’s conduct during the employment.

Written submissions were provided by both parties at adjudication and the worker, and her trade union representative also made oral submissions in respect of the issues she raised. The worker stated at the adjudication hearing that she had made so many complaints and had raised so many issues with management that she was unable to remember many of the issues herself.

In those circumstances, the union and the worker were asked to clarify the issues that were outstanding and what the worker sought in respect of these issues.

The worker outlined the issues that she would like investigated.

The worker stated that she sought the support of management in respect of the abusive attitude of service users/residents towards her. The worker stated that instead of receiving support, she was subject to a disciplinary process and amongst other things was placed on a performance improvement plan (PIP). The worker is seeking that this be investigated and the circumstances surrounding the PIP also be investigated. She is also seeking an investigation into how long the PIP was implemented for and when it would expire.

The worker also outlined that an incident referred to as the “knife incident” be investigated. This situation resulted in a service user making a complaint about the worker and another staff member, but only the worker was investigated. The worker is seeking that this issue be investigated.

The worker stated that complaints she made about her manager to the head of services were not investigated but the manager’s complaints about the worker as well as the complaints from others resulted in a disciplinary process. The worker is also seeking an investigation into this issue.

The employer’s position is that there were legitimate grounds to commence a disciplinary process in respect of the workers conduct at work. The employer stated that there were 25 complaints made against the worker and that 12 of these were upheld following a thorough and fair disciplinary process. The employer stated that not all the findings resulted in disciplinary sanctions against the worker, and she exercised her right of appeal in respect of the sanctions imposed.

In respect of the investigations sought by the worker, the employer stated that many of the issues occurred years ago, and it would be completely impractical to commence investigations now when people have moved on and no longer work for the organisation. In those circumstances, there would almost certainly be difficulties in relation to the availability of former staff members to partake in any investigation as well as the ability to recall issues that occurred many years ago. It is also the case that one person who had some involvement at the time is now deceased.

In relation to the PIP, this has now expired and is no longer on the worker’s record so from an industrial relations perspective an investigation into this issue would be a moot point given it no longer exists.

In respect of the “knife incident”, the worker was moved, and the complaint was not pursued by the service user and the worker herself did not pursue a formal complaint at the time either. On that basis, there would be no point in revisiting the situation and carrying out an investigation as sought.

In respect of other issues, there were many incidents where the worker raised issues of concern and complained about many different issues but did not formalise her complaints in line with the organisation’s grievance procedures despite being in receipt of same and being aware of the process for raising formal grievances if she felt aggrieved.

The employer concluded by reiterating its position that it would not be appropriate to investigate the matters as sought by the worker.

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

Firstly, the employer initiated a disciplinary process against the worker in November 2022 in relation to the complaints that were made against her. I have reviewed the timeline of the process that followed and except for the delay in concluding the investigation meetings and issuing of the investigation report, the rest of the process was carried out in a timely fashion. I also note that the worker exercised her right of appeal in respect of the disciplinary sanctions that she received. While the worker may be unhappy with the result of the process, it is not the role of a WRC Adjudication Officer (AO) to reinvestigate complaints or to insert themselves into an internal process. Nor is it the role of an AO to recommend on issues that have not been the subject of internal grievance procedures.

In respect of the worker’s request for investigation into issues that she raised, I fully accept that the passage of time and change of personnel will make investigating these issues extremely difficult if not impossible. I also note that there is little to be gained from re-opening these issues where in relation to the PIP, it no longer exists and in relation to the knife incident, no formal complaint was made at the time and the matter seems to have been addressed appropriately in the absence of a formal grievance on the issue. I also note that the complaint against the worker in respect of this incident was not pursued by the service user.

In all of the circumstances of the within referral, and having considered the issues raised, I do not recommend that investigations be carried out as sought by the worker.

Having considered the submissions of the parties, and for the reasons stated above, I do not recommend that the matters raised by the worker be the subject of further investigation. I recommend that that on the employees return to work, both parties commit to create a positive working environment going forward, and that the worker receive all reasonable supports to enable that to happen. I further recommend that any future issues that are raised by the worker be done in adherence to the employer’s policies and procedures so that the employer can address matters appropriately.