Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Kitchen Porter

 A Catering Company

Representatives

Came In Person and presented with Interpreter

No Appearance

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 - 00002866

17/07/2024

On 17 July 2024, The Worker raised a Workplace dispute with the WRC. She also sought the provision of an Interpreter to assist her in presenting her case.

On 22 July 2024, this was acknowledged and shared with the named Employer.

On 21 August 2024, the WRC confirmed in correspondence with the Worker the fact that her Employer had not replied to the request on whether they objected to an Investigation of the dispute by the Adjudicator under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.?

In the absence of such an objection, the case was subsequently listed for hearing on 9 October 2024 and postponed on the application of the Employer. It was relisted for hearing for 29 November 2024.

I canvassed submissions from both Parties. The Employer submitted a written submission dated 25 November 2024. The Worker did not respond to my request.

On 28 November 2024, one day prior to hearing the Employer placed the WRC on notice that they would not be attending the hearing. I have included this for the record.

We wish to confirm that this WRC Complaint was raised prior to the Internal grievance Process being invoked and exhausted fully. The Company has been engaging constructively with the employee and we continue to do so in relation to this matter. Please note that the second area of this complaint has already been resolved locally, with the employee now being transferred to a new site as per her request. Given that we are still working with the Complainant in relation to the Complaint we believe it would be premature to proceed with a WRC Hearing at this time. Engaging in such a hearing whilst internal processes are being utilised and invoked, in our view, would be an inefficient use of WRC resources. Furthermore, following local discussions with the Complainant, we note that the employee has expressed that she is looking for a loss of earnings for the duration of her recent Sick Leave. The Complainant has confirmed that this is one of her main reasons for wishing to proceed with a WRC Hearing. The employee was processed for her statutory and contractual sick pay during her absence, and she is not entitled to any further payment for same. In light of this and taking into consideration that the Internal Resolution Process is still in progress, we wish to respectfully inform you that we will not be in attendance for the scheduled hearing on Friday. However, we have submitted a Written Submission for your review and consideration.

I proceeded to hearing and met with the Worker, who presented her claim with the support of an Interpreter.

The Worker has worked as a Kitchen Porter with Employer from November 1, 2021. She described an unhappy work experience. She explained that she had poor English and clearly benefitted from the support of the Interpreter. She has lived in Ireland for over 20 years .

A new colleague, Ms A commenced work in October 2023. Prior to this the Worker said she had made a local agreement that she would rotate tasks week on week off with this new person.

The worker explained that she felt vulnerable when the new worker, Ms A was critical of work practices and other nationalities in the workplace. This escalated to pronounced conflicts and disagreements in June 2024. The Worker stated that she felt compelled to exit work due to stress.

The next day, the Worker returned to the workplace to contact human resources but was discouraged from making a complaint.

The Worker filed her complaint against Ms A and contended that she had felt “harassed bullied and discriminated against “neither party exhibited the grievance.

The Worker was then informed that Ms A had lodged a counter complaint against her. Neither Party exhibited this complaint either.

She summarised her dispute as:

“Currently, I’m the one suffering any consequences as I am out of work and suffering monetarily and mentally as I’m in constant stress and anxiety “

The Worker seemed distant from the contents of her complaint form until she explained that her daughter had compiled the Dispute but had been unavailable to attend the hearing with her.

She said she came to the WRC to highlight her ill treatment by the Company and in the hope that employees would be treated better. She denied that she was seeking financial compensation and confirmed that the Employer had offered her a return to work on an alternative site, which she had accepted.

The Worker confirmed that she understood that I was investigating her dispute alone.

The Worker was unhappy with the outcome of “inconclusive “for her grievance.

The Worker confirmed that she had appealed the outcome of the inconclusive grievance, and an outcome was awaited.

When asked why she had referred her claim to the WRC one day after filing a formal grievance? she concluded that she wanted the WRC to know about the difficulties she had with her Employer.

I requested her response to the Employer submission.

The Worker stated that she had been actively discouraged from making her formal grievance and from attending the WRC.

She had been stressed as a result of her treatment at work and was under medical supervision as a result. She had an extended period of absence for which she had lost earnings.

She contended that she had not been heard in her grievance and had appealed the outcome. She did not submit details of her grievance or notice of appeal.

She denied that she had sought to change work location and that she was directed to her current base by her employer.

The Employer did not attend the hearing and requested that consideration be given to a written submission.

I am disappointed that this Employer has not participated in my investigation in accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

With the best will in the world, Industrial Relations from where this Dispute arose is about People much more than paper.

It takes People to form a working relationship, and, in this case, it appears it took people to cause a fault in the working relationship.  This fault clearly remains at large in the Workers eyes at least.

I found it interesting that in the entire written submission, the workers name was not mentioned. For me at least this pointed to a remoteness in management.

Claims under Section 13 are based on the voluntarist model of Industrial Relations. There are no witnesses just people on both sides who are normally willing to try and scope out a mutually agreeable way forward to resolve a dispute or in the alternative to work with the Adjudicator to conclude the obligatory investigation from where a Recommendation may emerge.

I have found it unhelpful that the Employer chose to absent themselves from the hearing as I had a strong desire to understand what exactly was happening for both Parties and to ascertain if I could identify merit in the Dispute before me.

To summarise the Employers submission.

1 An informal grievance raised by the Worker indicated that the Worker did not wish to pair with Ms A for work purposes and sought to move base.

2 Ms A appeared to also have issues with the Worker.

3 A formal grievance was raised on 16 July 2024 by the Worker from a period of sick leave.

4 Ms A was also on sick leave.

5 The Worker was supported by an in-house interpreter.

6 The finding was inconclusive on 29 August 2024. Letter of outcome undated but offered an appeal.

7 The Worker has since returned to work and has not sustained a loss of earnings.

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

This has been a difficult case for me to follow. On the one hand, the Worker has not prepared for hearing by submission of key documents and chronology prior to hearing. On the other hand, the Employer has chosen not to participate at hearing and submitted a much-edited  and impersonal submission.

As I write this report, I have not seen the complaint which the Worker attributes as her grievance.

I have not seen the appeal referred to by the Worker. I have not seen the grievance lodged by Ms A.

I have not seen a Grievance Procedure, Diversity and Inclusion Policy or Bullying and Harassment Policy prevalent in this employment. I have not met with the Employer, who may have helped me in my investigation.

For my part, I must draw on the Labour Court maxim when they insist that a worker must exhaust internal disputes resolution mechanisms prior to seeking the intervention of the WRC as a Statutory body.

As I explained to the Worker at hearing, there is an onus on both worker and employer to try and resolve matters as close as possible to the point of origin.

I have a number of concerns in this case.

The Worker is an EU Worker with poor English. She had no visible knowledge of company policies or procedures. She is a vulnerable worker.

She relied on her daughter to formulate her claim to the WRC, yet her daughter did not support her by attending at hearing.

The Worker was unable to provide her preferred solution in the case. She believes that she has appealed the grievance deemed as inconclusive.

While, I have stated my clear reservations regarding the progression of this claim by both Parties, I am left with a sense of unease regarding this worker.

I must explain to the Parties that the WRC is keen to participate in dispute resolution once the parties have attempted to resolve matters using whatever policies or codes of practice available to them. It is not a chat room to simply complain or out  a perceived difficult  employer.

A claim   under the Industrial Act 1969 requires some thought and strategy prior to submission . It also requires detail as the Adjudicator will more often than not be a stranger to this workplace.

However, given the vulnerable presentation of the worker coupled by an absence of an employer at hearing , I would like to make a Recommendation to the Parties. I am reluctant to turn my back on what appears at first glance at least is a fractured employment.

I have found some merit in this dispute.

Dispute regarding Interpersonal conflict at work, vulnerable worker.