ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00002362
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Traffic Warden | Local Authority |
Representatives | Julia Sweetnam Workers Rights Centre, SIPTU | In- House Representation |
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 - 00002362 | 14/03/2024 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Thomas O'Driscoll
Date of Hearing: 08/10/2024
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. Written submission and documentation were presented at the hearing.
Background:
The Worker is employed as a Traffic Warden with a local authority and earns €700 per week gross. He claims that he is not being accommodated in the provision of adequate toilet facilities during his workday and that his grievance on the matter has not been dealt with fairly by the Employer. He seeks proper toilet facilities and an acknowledgement that the Employer has acted unreasonably in its dealings with him. The Employer argues it has provided facilities for the Worker that go beyond the norm and that it has addressed all the grievances raised by the Worker in recent times. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The Worker submits that he has type 2 diabetes and that his wife suffers from serious renal problems. He requested ongoing access to the toilet facilities at a town yard used by the roads section of the local authority. He contends that this access is necessary to protect both himself and his wife from contracting Covid. After raising valid concerns about inadequate facilities and experiencing bullying from a colleague, he filed a formal grievance in September 2022, which the Employer failed to address adequately. The Worker also alleged that he was bullied and harassed by a colleague, resulting in an assault. However, the Employer did not effectively manage the grievance he raised concerning this matter. Numerous communications followed between Council representatives and SIPTU in an attempt to resolve the issue and request reasonable accommodations. Despite apparent progress in August 2023, including a proposal for separate facilities, these were not provided, leaving the Worker without adequate support for his disability. The Worker argues that the Employer has violated its Grievance & Disciplinary Policy by failing to address his grievances in a timely and fair manner and has also breached the Employment Equality Act 1998 by failing to accommodate his health needs. He contends that the Employer’s inaction has resulted in discriminatory treatment and a hostile work environment, contrary to both their policies and relevant legislation. The Worker asserts that the Employer must complete a fair and impartial grievance procedure, ensuring that he is treated with respect, his disability is accommodated, and his working environment is maintained in accordance with employment and equality laws. He seeks a resolution that includes the restoration of access to suitable toilet facilities and an end to the punitive treatment stemming from his grievances. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Employer argues that the Worker seems to believe that all local authority staff should have access to every toilet facility. However, this is not the case. Certain toilet facilities are designated for exclusive use by specific individuals or departments, primarily for health and safety reasons. The facilities at the yard in question were introduced during the Covid pandemic for the exclusive use of Roads Staff. For nine months (March 2022 to December 2022), the Worker had unauthorised access to these facilities without the consent of Roads Operations Division Management. Since the yard is a Roads Operations Division site, health and safety are managed by that division. The Employer submits that the Worker, not being part of the Roads Operations Division, does not possess the necessary knowledge or training concerning their risk assessments and control measures. The facilities will now be closed as they were connected to an unauthorised sewer. The Employer contends that it is impractical to erect separate facilities for the Worker, as his needs are already more than catered for. They employ many traffic wardens, including those with diabetes, who use public facilities where appropriate. The Worker has access to an office with shared toilet facilities, and he is also provided with a car to reach toilets located approximately one mile from his primary work area. Additionally, he has access to public toilets in a nearby shopping centre. The Health and Safety Authority (HSA) reviewed his facilities twice, in response to his individual requests in 2009 and 2023, and no further action was deemed necessary. The matter was not referred to the Employer’s Health & Safety Forum or the Safety Representatives. The Employer submits that the facilities provided to the Worker represent a reasonably practicable solution given his operational needs. The Employer states that the Worker has raised concerns about inadequate toilet facilities continuously from 2009 to 2024. Initially, the Council directed him to use nearby toilets. In 2022, issues resurfaced when access to the yard toilets was restricted, leading to renewed grievances and requests for additional facilities. Meetings and site visits took place throughout 2023 to explore potential solutions, many of which the Worker rejected or accepted under protest. The Employer argues that this demonstrates more than adequate engagement with the Worker. In 2024, the Roads Operations Division confirmed that the yard facilities, introduced as a temporary Covid-19 measure, would be removed due to the absence of necessary permissions for a permanent setup. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have considered all relevant submissions, both verbal and written, presented by both parties. The Worker’s representative cited the Employment Equality Act 1998, with reference to associated cases. However, this is an industrial relations dispute, and the stringent legal norms applied to determining “reasonable accommodation” under the Act do not apply here. Nonetheless, I am satisfied that the Worker has been reasonably accommodated in this case. He enjoys facilities far exceeding those offered to his colleagues with similar disabilities, as he is provided with a car to access facilities one mile from his primary work area. Furthermore, when the Worker raised concerns with the Health and Safety Authority in both 2009 and 2023, the Authority determined that no issue arose. I am therefore satisfied that the Employer provides more than adequate facilities for the Worker. The Worker cites unfair treatment and unreasonable behaviour by the Employer for not properly addressing his grievances. It is accepted in industrial relations disputes that a worker must properly initiate a grievance or complaint procedure before claiming that an employer has failed to adhere to the agreed procedures. In this case, the Worker did not formally lodge a complaint under the Dignity at Work Policy, nor did he follow the step-by-step procedure outlined in the grievance process. Instead, he bypassed intermediate steps by writing directly to the CEO of the local authority and making direct complaints to the HSA, bypassing his safety representative and the Employer’s Health & Safety Forum. Moreover, the Worker used the yard facilities without authorisation, which inevitably caused friction with staff at that location. Despite this, I find that from October 2023 onwards, the Employer adopted a hands-off approach, with no meaningful communication with the Worker or his union representative. Despite repeated efforts from his union official to get a definitive response from the Council, no clear position was conveyed. The Council was fully aware that the matter could potentially be referred to the WRC. Employers have an obligation to engage with employees and provide clear communication, whether the news is positive or negative. In this case, the Employer’s failure to do so created an unfairness that must be addressed. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
- I am satisfied that the current welfare facilities as provided by the Employer are adequate and reasonable and that the Worker accepts that no extra facilities can be provided.
- I recommend that the Worker uses the proper agreed grievance/complaint procedures if any workplace issue should arise in the future.
- I am satisfied that the Employer did not meaningfully communicate its position nor adequately respond to representations made on behalf of the Worker by his Union representatives from October 2023 to the date of submission of the dispute to the WRC in March 2024. This caused unnecessary frustration and unfairness of treatment and I recommend that the employer should pay compensation of €500 to the Worker.
Dated: 31st of October 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Thomas O'Driscoll
Key Words:
Industrial Relations Act 1969. |