ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969

Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00002777

Parties:

	Worker	Employer
Anonymised Parties	Process Executive	Business Process Management Company

Representatives

Self

Did not attend

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 - 00002777	23/06/2024

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy

Date of Hearing: 01/10/2024

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended)following the referral of the dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute(s).

As this is a trade dispute under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 the hearing took place in private, and the parties are not named. The parties are referred to as “the Worker” and “the Employer”. Section 13(9)(c) of the Act provides that hearings shall be heard in private and accordingly, I direct that any information that might identify the parties within this recommendation should not be published.

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

The Worker’s complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 23/06/2024. The Employer was notified of the Worker’s complaint by letter dated 26/06/2023 and notified of their right under Section 36(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990, to object to an investigation of the dispute by an Adjudication Officer within21 days. The Employer was informed that failure to reply within the period specified will be regarded as consent to an investigation by an Adjudication Officer under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, and the dispute proceeded to hearing.

I am satisfied that no objection to the investigation of this dispute by an Adjudication Officer was received by the Workplace Relations Commission from the Employer.

The Worker attended the hearing and represented himself. The Employer or a representative on behalf of the Employer did not attend.

I explained to the Worker at the outset the way the hearing would proceed, and I clarified the role of an Adjudication Officer in an Industrial Relations dispute. I clarified that it is a voluntary process and that no formal evidence is taken. In that context there are no findings of fact made. I also clarified there were no complaints under any employment rights statute or any matter of law before me in this specific referral. I explained that I would be seeking information during the hearing in order to gain an understanding of the full extent of the issues giving rise to this dispute. At the end of the hearing the complainant confirmed that he satisfied that he was given an adequate opportunity to provide the hearing with all the relevant information.

Background:

The Worker commenced employment with the Employer in 2018. His role is that of a Process Executive and this involved processing orders for customers and resolving queries and issues.

Summary of Workers Case:

The Worker was employed as a Process Executive. He started in the processing team and other Workers who started around the same time as him were promoted to senior positions. He outlined that a hallmark of his employment was the number of occasions he was moved to other teams without any consideration of his skill set or training requirements. He believes that this happened due to the fact that his team leader did not like him. The Worker performed well in all teams and when his performance was praised or noted by a supplier he was moved again. He regularly asked about being appointed to a senior role and the result was that he would be moved on to another team.

The Worker also never got an answer to his query in relation to having a permanent position.

The Worker outlined details of an incident in relation to the use of his personal mobile phone. He was not allowed to have this when working and the Employer then required him to use it to authenticate his work systems. He raised a query in relation to this and was threatened with a referral to HR if he did not comply. He did comply and when he made a complaint to HR there was no progress on this.

The Worker also had an issue in relation to a late payment and this took months to get sorted. The Employer sorted it when the Worker outlined his intention to seek legal assistance.

The Worker was also required to work overtime, and he would be regularly notified of this during the day, and he was told that this was a contractual obligation. His query in relation to when the working day started was met with a reply stating that it began when the overtime began.

The Employer commenced an investigation against him when he made a comment about a public order incident in Dublin city. His comment was taken as an improper comment about immigrants and despite the fact that he is an immigrant himself.

The Worker also had an issue in relation to a request to attend a meeting with HR and the site leader. He sought clarification and wanted to record the meeting, but this was refused. He felt threatened and left the meeting.

The Worker also outlined that since making a referral of his dispute to the WRC he was dismissed by the Employer on 28/07/2024.

Summary of Employer’s Case:

The Employer did not attend the hearing or provide any documentation to the WRC in relation to this dispute.

Conclusions:

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the Worker in the absence of the Employer.

Disputes under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 should generally only be referred to the WRC when all internal efforts to resolve the dispute have been exhausted. I believe that the Worker’s dispute is properly before the Workplace Relations Commission for investigation on the basis that the internal mechanisms to resolve the Worker’s dispute were availed of or exhausted by the Worker.

As the Worker in this dispute is no longer employed by the Employer there is no recommendation that I can make that would be of assistance to him. I am recommending that the Employer reviews its policies and procedures in relation to recruitment, internal transfers and grievance handling and ensure that they are fit for purpose.

Recommendation:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

As the Worker has now been dismissed from his position there is no recommendation which might be of assistance to him. However, on the basis of my investigation I am satisfied that the Employer did not have clear policies in relation to the recruitment and internal transfer of Workers. I also note that the Employer did not adhere to “best practice” in relation to its grievance handling and investigation of Worker related issues. I am recommending that the Employer review its policies and procedures in relation to these matters and ensure that they are fit for purpose.

Dated: 11-10-24

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy

Key Words:

Dispute re transfer, payments, promotion. Grievance and disciplinary matters.