Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Assistant Staff Officer

Local Authority

Representatives

1st day - Richard Stapleton Richard Stapleton Solicitors; 2nd day – Bridget Breslin – lay representative

Keith Irvine Local Government Management Agency (LGMA)

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 - 00002311

02/03/2024

The Worker referred her dispute to the Director General of the WRC on 2 March 2023.

The Worker referred two other complaints against the Employer to the Director General of the WRC in 2021. The within dispute was heard in conjunction with these complainants.

In her WRC referral form, the Worker alleged that the Employer has repeatedly refused to engage with her grievance which has resulted in ongoing losses. In addition, she claimed that the Employer refused to respond to basic queries from her which is aggravating the dispute and preventing her from returning to her position.

At the adjudication hearing, the Worker’s representative submitted that the Employer has failed to deal adequately with the Worker’s protected disclosure which remains outstanding. As a result of same, the Worker has suffered ongoing losses and damage to her health and welfare.

It was also submitted that that there is a pattern of the Employer attempting to delay and frustrate the Worker’s grievances.

The Worker relies on the WRC recommendation IR- SC- 00001147 where the WRC recommended that the worker be compensated in the sum of €3,000 in respect of a 15-month delay.

It was submitted that, in this case the delay is much longer and despite the recommendations of Occupational Health on 27 February 2024, the Employer has refused to engage positively to allow the Worker to return to work. The Employer had indicated that it would respond to the queries raised in a letter of 11 March 2024 on behalf of the Worker but to date has refused to do so.

The situation has deteriorated further with flagrant breach of the Worker’s privacy which is also unresolved.

It was submitted that the failures of the Employer are inexcusable and should be treated as such.

The Employer submits that the Worker has not raised any complaints, grievances or otherwise with the Employer in writing and despite correspondence from the Worker’s representative referencing a grievance on 9 September 2021, there is no record of any grievance received on that date, nor has any been produces by the Worker.

It is a matter of fact that the Worker, in her correspondence of 14 April 2022 stated that she was “not pursuing a grievance”. Subsequently, on 21 February 2024, the Worker’s representative wrote to the Employer asserting that “…our client raised a grievance with her Lime Manager [named] on 9th September 2021 concerning the unacceptable behaviours of a staff member…” Again, no written grievance has ever been received by the Employer.

Despite this and following multiple letters from the Worker’s representative seeking an investigation of a grievance, the Employer sought to resolve matters and even without any grievance submitted, arranged for an investigation to take place; whereby any grievance could be submitted verbally at the outset of the investigating. This was refused by the Worker who insisted on an external investigator.

It is also a matter of fact that the Worker had issues with a work colleague who was the perceived “work stressor”. Despite that employee transferring to a different area, the Worker continued to be absent and sought an investigation for and that her “perceived work stressor” be removed before her returning to work.

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

The Worker submitted her dispute to the Director General of the WRC alleging that she has a trade dispute that she would like investigated. 

At the adjudication hearing, it was confirmed by the Worker and her representative that, essentially, best part of the Worker’s dispute is based on the same facts that are contained within her complaints that were separately referred to the Director General under other pieces of legislation and were dealt with separately as appropriate. The Worker has already sought redress in respect of the claims under the relevant statutory framework.

This recommendation can, therefore, deal only with the matters that fell outside the scope of my investigation under the relevant statutory framework under which the Worker has already sought redress and will not revisit other claims raised in the Worker’s submission.

It is apparent from the correspondence between the parties that despite repeated invitations from the Employer, the Worker declined to raise a grievance and, instead, she proceeded with complaints pursuant to the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005 and the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014 as amended. The Worker, however, had an expectation that the Employer somehow resolves her complaints without investigating the matter and, therefore, without applying fair procedures and the universal principles of natural justice.

It was accepted by the Worker that she had received and was familiar with the Employer’s grievance procedure; however, no formal grievance was lodged by her.

It is incumbent upon a Worker to follow and exhaust all internal procedures prior to referring a dispute to the Workplace Relations Commission.

In Geoghegan T/A Taps v a Worker INT 1014 the Labour Court held that “The Court is not prepared to insert itself into the procedural process in a situation where the dispute procedures have been bypassed.” It is well established by the Workplace Relations Commission and the Labour Court that they do not intervene in a dispute under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 until all internal procedures have been fully exhausted.

On the basis that the Worker failed to follow the internal procedures, I find that I do not have jurisdiction to make a recommendation in this dispute.

I do not recommend concession of the Worker’s claim.

Grievance – internal procedures not exhausted