ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969

Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC – 00002715

	Worker	Employer
Anonymised Parties	An Attendant	A Nursing Home

Representatives

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 - 00002715	04/06/2024

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Bríd Deering

Date of Hearing: 29/08/2024

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 investigated the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard and to present any information relevant to the dispute. The hearing was held in the Hearing Rooms of the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) in Carlow. Detailed submissions were made by both parties in advance of the hearing.

Summary of Workers Case:

The Worker is absent from work on certified sick leave since May 2023. She has attended all occupational health reviews as requested by her Employer. The last medical report recommended a further medical review within 4 to 6 months. The Worker was invited to a formal absence review meeting following the issuing of that report. She was advised her employment was being terminated on medical grounds. The Worker challenged this decision on the basis that the medical report provided for a further medical review in 4 to 6 months. The Worker informed the HR Business Partner that she would seek legal advice on the matter. The Worker then referred a dispute to the WRC. Since the referral of her dispute to the WRC, the Employer agreed not to terminate the Worker’s employment and to await the outcome of the next occupational health review. When asked by the Adjudication Officer what Recommendation the Worker is seeking, the Worker said she did not know and she agreed that matters have moved on since the referral of her dispute to the WRC. However, the Worker is concerned that the same dispute may arise following the next occupational health review.

Summary of Employer’s Case:

The Employer did not object to a hearing of the dispute. The Employer did not attend the hearing. However, a detailed written submission was forwarded to the WRC in advance of the hearing, together with notice that the Employer would not be attending the hearing.

Conclusions:

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

In Gregory Geoghegan T/a Taps v A Worker (INT1014), the Labour Court noted:

“Having carefully considered the submissions of both parties the Court . . . is not prepared to insert itself into the procedural process in a situation where the dispute procedures have been bypassed.”

It is essential to the maintenance of good employee relations that before submitting a dispute to the WRC, a Worker exhausts the internal procedures available to them in the workplace. The Worker in this dispute confirmed that she had not exhausted the internal grievance procedure before referring this dispute to the WRC. The Worker confirmed that she is still in the employment of the Employer.

Recommendation:

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

I find this dispute is without merit. I recommend the Worker follows the Employer’s internal grievance procedure should she have any future concerns in relation to her employment.

Dated: 5th of September 2024