ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00002629
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | Worker | Employer |
Representatives | N/A | Keith Irvine, Local Government Management Agency (the “LGMA”) |
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 - 00002629 | 14/05/2024 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Elizabeth Spelman
Dates of Hearing: 04/09/2024 and 31/01/2025
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 inquired into the dispute and gave the Parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute.
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 Hearing Dates:
The Hearing was held over the course of two days:
4 September 2024:
This matter was scheduled for a remote Hearing on 4 September 2024. Due to technical difficulties, the Worker was unable to log into the Hearing. In the circumstances, the matter was rescheduled for an in-person Hearing.
31 January 2025:
This matter was scheduled for an in-person Hearing on 31 January 2025.
The Worker was in attendance and one person accompanied him, by way of support. The Employer was represented by the Local Government Management Agency (the “LGMA”). Two witnesses, an Executive Engineer and a HR Officer, attended for the Employer.
Background:
The Worker was employed by the Employer as a School Warden from 6 January 2020 until 25 April 2024. From September 2022, the Worker was assigned additional duties relating to the local park. He worked 20 hours per week and most recently was paid €17.30 gross per hour. The Worker submitted his dispute regarding bullying and harassment procedures to the Workplace Relations Commission (the “WRC”) on 14 May 2024.
|
Summary of Workers Case:
The Worker outlined that he was bullied and harassed in his job. He stated that this took the form of, inter alia, his Supervisor’s comments concerning his appearance. He said that it was degrading. He said that he called HR and outlined his grievances. He said that he did not engage with HR any further. He said that he felt that he had to leave his job. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Employer outlined that the Worker did not call HR but that he had called a member of staff who held a general administrative role and who operated at the district level. The Employer also referred to A General Operative v. A Local Authority, ADJ-00018981. The Employer submitted that the Worker had failed to exhaust all internal dispute resolution mechanisms. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
It is well established that, before submitting a grievance about any matter to the WRC, an employee must exhaust the internal procedures at their workplace. In Gregory Geoghegan t/a TAPS v. A Worker, INT1014, the Labour Court held:
“The Court is not prepared to insert itself into the procedural process in a situation where the dispute procedures have been bypassed.”
I note that the Worker made a telephone call to the Employer regarding his grievances, but that he did not follow up on the call and / or put his grievance in writing. He therefore did not utilise the Employer’s grievance procedure. As the internal procedures have not been exhausted, I cannot insert myself into the procedural process. In the circumstances, the Worker’s dispute is without merit and is not well founded. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
As the internal procedures have not been exhausted, I cannot insert myself into the procedural process. In the circumstances, the Worker’s dispute is without merit and is not well founded.
Dated: 19-02-25
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Elizabeth Spelman
Key Words:
Industrial Relations Act, Section 13, Grievance procedure, Bullying and harassment. |