LCR23202

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

(Referral under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969)

BACKGROUND:

The Worker referred this case to the Labour Court on 19 June 2025 in accordance with Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 21 November 2025.

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation

The issue between the parties arises from the HSE’s failure to comply with their own Grievance procedure by refusing to accept a stage one recommendation and refusing to attend the WRC leaving the Complainant with no way to process her grievance other than by making a section 20(1) referral to the Court.

The Worker in April 2024 looked for her SQA allowance to be reinstated. Over the next six months she sent various emails to her line manager, HR, submitted details on at least two occasions and did not receive an outcome for an extended period of time. She raised a grievance which was upheld but then overturned at the next stage in the process. Finally at stage 3 of the grievance procedure she was informed that her issue (eligibility for SQA allowance) did not fall within the scope of the grievance procedure as the circular left the final decision on eligibility to the ADON.  The Worker submitted her claim in good faith; she was then directed to the grievance procedure. The person who was assigned to hear her grievance was later stated to not have the autonomy to make the decision they made, which was then overturned at stage two. When her complaint reached stage three of the grievance procedure she was told that her complaint was out of the scope for the procedure. This mishandling of her complaint was magnified by the refusal of the Employer to attend at the WRC. 

 The Employer submitted that the Worker in her current role was not eligible for the allowance, and she was informed of that by letter of 21 November 2024 from the Area Clinical Director of Nursing.  It is not disputed that she first looked for the allowance in Apil 2024, and it took seven months to get a definitive answer. While the refusal of the allowance was lodged as a grievance it did not fall within the scheme, and this was pointed out to the Worker at stage three of her grievance.

 The issue before the Court was not the payment of the allowance but the manner in which the Employer dealt with her claim. It is extraordinary that a claim for a long-standing allowance would take seven months and many emails to get to an outcome.  The Worker was then allowed process her claim in the grievance procedure up to stage three. No explanation was forthcoming as to why she was not told at the first or second stage of the grievance procedure that her complaint was not covered by the procedure if that was the case.

The Court having considered the submissions of the parties both written and oral noted that the issue was completely mishandled and delayed and recommends that the Employer pay the Worker compensation of €3,700.

The Court so Recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
FC	______________________
15 December 2025	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be in writing and addressed to Ms Fiona Corcoran, Court Secretary.