Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Group Sales Manager

Plant Hire Company

Representatives

Gary Clements,

Group MD.

Alison Field,

HR Director.

Janine Byrne,

HR Business Partner.

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 - 00002445

03/04/2024

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/2020 which said instrument designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings pursuant to Section 31 of the Principal Act. The said remote hearing was set up and hosted by an appointed member of the WRC administrative staff. I am satisfied that no party was prejudiced by having this hearing conducted remotely.  I am also satisfied that I was in a position to fully exercise my functions and I made all relevant inquiries in the usual way.

As the within matter is a dispute between parties and brought before the WRC using the Industrial Relations Acts it was heard in private and the recommendation is anonymised.

The hearing was conducted in recognition of the fact that all hearings (formal or otherwise) should be conducted fairly. The hearing was not conducted in public as it concerned a dispute brought under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969.

Industrial Relations disputes are primarily heard on the basis of factual submissions provided by the respective parties. Relevant parties might be invited to give an oral recollection of events, facts and matters within their knowledge. Testimony may be subject to rebuttal by witnesses or other relevant evidence provided by the other side.

The Complainant had lodged his complaint/dispute at the same time as his Co-Worker. The Complaints/disputes are identical.  In the circumstances ADJ File 50904 was listed for hearing at the exact same time as this matter was. The Respondent remained the same for both this file and the associated one. All parties agreed to have these matters proceed as one.

The Complaint form herein issued out of the WRC on the 3rd of April 2024.

The Complainant was not represented and made his own case. The Complainant and his co-worker (ADJ 50904) jointly presented their cases as their experiences were identical. The Complainant gave an oral account of the circumstances he says have brought him before the WRC. The Complainant witness was his Co-Worker aforementioned. The Complainant additionally relied on the submission outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form.  I was provided with supplemental documentary evidence in support of the Complainant’s case. No objection was raised to any of the materials relied upon by the Complainant in making his case. The Evidence adduced by the complainant and his witness was challenged as appropriate by the Respondent.

The Complainant wants the Grievance raised in the course of his employment to be fully investigated by the Company.

Where it also became necessary, I explained how the Industrial Relations process operated with particular emphasis on the need to focus on a recommendation which could be implemented.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by the Industrial Relations Statute. 

The Respondent had representation at this hearing in the persons of the Managing Director, the HR Director and a HR Business Partner. The Managing Director and the HR Director gave evidence. The Respondent provided me with a written submissions dated 3rd of July 2024. I have additionally heard from a number of witnesses for the Respondent. No objection was raised in connection with any of the documentary evidence relied upon by the Respondent in the course of making its case. The Respondent evidence was challenged as appropriate by the complainant.

The Respondent has indicated a willingness to allow the Grievance procedure to be completed beyond the remit of the Adjudication process.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute.

I have carefully listened to both the parties herein.

The Complainant has been with the Respondent plant Hire company since 1993. Over the 30 years the Complainant has worked his way up to the position of Group Sales Manager based out of Laois and Dublin.

On the 2nd of February 2024 the Complainant tendered his resignation. It appears to be common case that the Company was coming through a tumultuous period with a lot of key personnel leaving and a new Management structure coming in from the UK wing of the Group.

The MD of the Company had a meeting with the complainant and his Co-Worker who had also just tended his resignation. This meeting was held on or about the 8th of February 2024. The MD says he was disappointed because the Respondent had considered that the Complainant was vital to the future growth and development of the business. To that end, Mr MD and other members of senior management had engaged in numerous discussions with the Complainant since January 2024 (with one such discussion being organised by the Complainant) regarding the senior leadership role which it was envisaged he would assume in the future. Those discussions had focussed upon the means by which Mr MD and the senior management team could support the Complainant in the senior leadership role which it had been envisaged he would assume.

It is the conduct of this meeting held on the 8th of February 2024 that has become the subject matter of a Grievance raised by each of the two Co-workers who attended.

There were no notes taken at this meeting and two very different versions of this meeting have been given by the Complainants on the one part and the MD on the other.

The Complainant and his co-worker gave evidence that the meeting was hostile, angry and accusatory. They gave evidence that they were accused of deleting company files. They also stated that they were told that their actions in resigning placed the ongoing employment of 100 colleagues at risk.

The Complainant and his co-worker requested Garden Leave which they suggested was the industry norm – though no Contract of Employment confirming this, was provided. I understand that MD pushed back on this request, stating that they would be expected to attend the workplace for the three month notice period to ensure a smooth handover in circumstances where the loss of their seniority was a big issue for the Company moving forward. The Complainant and his co-worker stated that MD went so far as to suggest that he would be monitoring all their movements in the three-month period to presumably ensure they were completing company work on company time. This was the perceived inference.

The Complainant and his co-worker agreed that though the meeting did calm down a little and there was a one-to-one chat with MD, they both left the meeting affronted at how they had been treated.

I accept that MD gives an entirely different account of how this meeting was conducted and he does not accept that it was as heavy handed as is being suggested. He had understood that he had put the predicament that this joint resignation had put the company into, to both the Complainant and his co-worker. On exiting the meeting, he had understood that both of them had agreed that they would meet him in one weeks’ time to further discuss the decision and how Notice might be worked through.

Both the Complainant and his co-worker went out on work related stress leave in the aftermath of this meeting. On 14 February 2024, the Complainant forwarded a medical certificate to the Group HR Director, certifying that he was unfit to work due to stress. The Complainant remained on certified sick leave from 15 February until the Respondent acceded to his request to be put on garden leave. This decision was taken by the HR Director. The Complainant remained on full pay during this period of sick leave. The Complainant and his Colleague also issued a joint letter to the HR Director on the 14 February 2024. In this letter, they indicated that they considered their positions to be untenable for three reasons. These were the accusation of deleting company files, the proposed monitoring of their movements and the tone of the meeting just conducted.

They further indicated that they would be receiving both medical and legal advice on their positions going forward.

The HR Director was aware that this letter amounted to a letter of formal Grievance. I accept that the HR Director needed to be mindful of the fact that the two employees were out on what amounted to a stress related leave and that the root of the stress was partly being attributed to MD and the meeting just held. In the circumstances I agree that the HR Director rightly opted to step back. As the HR Director had granted the Garden Leave requested, she may have thought that there would be no need to proceed with a Grievance process in circumstances where the Complainant and his co-worker were on the clock with an end date of April 31st 2024.

I note that the Complainant’s Doctor wrote to the Complainant on the 29th of February 2024, stating that whilst the complainant was unable to return to work on the basis of stress related illness, he was also keen to keep the lines of communication open to resolve any outstanding issues. I do not see this as an implicit instruction to continue with a Grievance process. In a letter of the same date from the Complainant he appears to conflate the two issues of having a Grievance hearing with accepting the terms around being allowed to have unfettered Garden leave for the balance of his Notice. 

However, that said, there can be no doubt that the Complainant and his co-worker wanted some resolution of the perceived egregious way in which the meeting of the 8th of February was handled. This was certainly clear as of his letter to the HR Director on the 21st of March 2024.

It was against this backdrop that the complainant issued his workplace relations complaint form on the 3rd of April 2024. The Complainant form issued while the Complainant was still an Employee of the Company.

Between then and now I note that the HR Director has offered that a full Grievance Investigation and Outcome was offered. This offer has not been taken up and I believe that it is in the interests of all the parties that an independent Grievance process should be implemented. This is in line with the general proposition that parties ought to have exhausted the workplace mechanisms before bringing a Grievance or complaint to the WRC. I confirm that the fact that the Employment relationship is now terminated is not a deterrent to the implementation of a Grievance Investigation and outcome.

In the course of the hearing before me, I believe that both parties accepted that this would be a workable solution. This is my final analysis of the merits of the within dispute.