LCR23063

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00046249 (CA-00057083 IR-SC-00001450).

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 20 June 2024 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

On 13 May 2024 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:

“I recommend that no further action is taken”.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 8 November 2024.

DECISION:

The dispute before the Labour Court has its origins in a workplace incident in September 2020. Following a referral of that matter to the WRC, it was agreed that an independent third party would conduct a formal investigation into that issue.

The matter on appeal to the Court concerns the conduct of that independent investigation. The worker submits that the employer did not adhere to the terms of reference for the investigation.

While terms of reference were agreed, obstacles emerged during the investigation process as certain documents were not shared with the investigator and two witnesses declined to engage with the process. The Worker sought clarity on these matters at the draft report stage.

The Court heard that the manager who commissioned the investigation was unaware of the documents (five witness statements from staff on duty at the time) and, as a result, had not shared them with the investigator. 

The Court notes that the worker sought copies of the initial witness statements via a Freedom of Information request and the non-release of those documents under that process (which is not a matter before the Court) may have contributed to the worker’s sense of grievance about how his complaint was investigated.

The Court further notes three of the five witnesses were interviewed as part of the process, however, two individuals declined to engage with the investigation process. The Court heard that individuals who refuse to engage with internal investigations, as happened in this case, are subject to a separate disciplinary process. It is impossible to ascertain, after the event, whether the participation of those individuals in the investigation process would have altered the outcome.

The Court has given careful consideration to the oral and written submissions of the parties.

The worker was clearly entitled to have his complaint investigated as part of a formal investigation. The Court appreciates that because of circumstances that arose during the investigation, the worker is dissatisfied with the outcome.

From the information provided, the Labour Court concludes that notwithstanding the difficulties that arose, the conduct of the overall investigation process was on balance fair and independent.

Having regard to all of the circumstances of this case, and in light of the passage of time since the workplace issue arose, the Court recommends that the worker accept the findings of the investigator in this matter. 

Noting all the above, the Court recommends that the parties accept the matter to be closed.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
TH	______________________
11th November 2024	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

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