Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

An Assistant Manager

A Homeless Charity

Representatives

  In person

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 - 00002111

09/01/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00002112

09/01/2024

The Worker issued two (IR) disputes under the Industrial Relations Acts and two (ER) Employment Rights complaints. The ER complaints have already been determined and a decision has issued. This Recommendation is issued pursuant to the IR Acts.

IR-SC-00002111 – The Worker asserts that, by way of text message, she raised a work grievance with the CEO of the Employer and even though he replied that he would investigate her grievance, he failed to do so. Her grievance was that when she went on sick leave due to over-work and work-related stress, a manager contacted her and should not have done so. The manager did several times- about sick certificates and returning equipment - when the Worker should have been left alone to recover. The CEO replied to her text at the time telling her that he would get back to her, but he never did. The same manager later contacted the Worker again in September 2023 when she was still on sick leave about drafting a statement on behalf of the Employer for a court case.

IR-SC-00002112 – The Worker asserts that she raised a complaint about doing additional duties from August 2021 until July 2023 and not being recompensed for doing additional duties. She was expected to do extra work all within a 48-hour working week but often could not (which is subject of a separate ER complaint.) She raised this issue a number of times with her line manager who agreed that she should be paid more for all the additional work and her line manager reported this on to her line-manager but nothing was ever done.  The grievance was never investigated. It was essentially ignored.

A witness, the Worker’s line manager,  gave corroborative evidence at the WRC hearing that on several occasions she told her line manager that the Worker was overworked was often very distressed by the level of overwork and asked to be paid for the additional work hours that she was expected to do.  

IR-SC-00002111 – It was asserted on behalf of the Employer that the Worker failed to exhaust the Employer grievance process. If she had felt that the CEO had not dealt adequately with her grievance (and it is not accepted that the text that she sent the CEO constituted the appropriate way to raise a grievance) she had a right to appeal his alleged failure to act as a grievance but chose not to.

In addition the CEO did deal with the fact that she was contacted during her sick leave and after his intervention and the equipment was returned she was not contacted except for in September when due to an imminently pending court case the Employer required her to draft a statement. But she did not raise a formal grievance about the manager contacting her in July and she did not raise any even an informal grievance about the manager contacting her in September, before she left her employment.

IR-SC-00002112 - It was asserted on behalf of the Employer that she failed to exhaust the Employer’s grievance process. She had an option to pursue a formal grievance but did not. It is also asserted that she was already being paid for the additional duties from the time that she was promoted to an assistant manager.

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

Under the IR Acts, internal grievance process need to be fully exhausted before a dispute may be investigated by the WRC. This means that grievances that are properly raised need to investigated, fully pursued and an outcome reached.

In respect of dispute IR-SC-00002111 I am satisfied that raising a grievance by way of text (about being contacted while on sick leave) to the CEO is an informal way that a worker may raise a grievance as per the Respondent Grievance Procedures. There is nothing inappropriate about a grievance being raised by way of text. I am satisfied that the CEO did not deal with her grievance as he advised the Complainant that he would. I accept that he dealt with the practical issues of the equipment being returned and advising the manager to stop contacting the Worker while she was on sick leave however after having told the Worker that he would investigate her grievance on her return to annual leave, I am satisfied that he did not. But when he did not do so, the next step in the grievance process was for the Worker to raise a formal grievance and she did not do so. In failing to do so she failed to exhaust the Respondent’s grievance procedures, I find that this complaint to be not well founded.

In respect of dispute IR-SC-00002112, I am satisfied that the Complainant failed to raise a formal grievance in respect of not being adequately remunerated for the additional duties. I accept that she raised the issue several times with her line-manager and I accept the evidence of the line manager was that the issue was raised by her on behalf of the Worker with her line manager and that nothing was done. However the IR jurisdiction of the WRC is confined to considering the fairness of a fully pursued grievance process and as the Worker accepts that she did not raise a formal grievance. I find that this complaint to be not well founded because the internal grievance process was not exhausted.

IR – Grievance – internal grievance processes not exhausted.