Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

An employee

An Employer

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 - 00001322

25/04/2023

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

Unfortunately, the recommendation in relation to this complaint was delayed due in part to the death of a close family member of the Adjudication Officer in the weeks following the hearing , together with a subsequent bout of Covid 19 which further delayed the finalisation of this recommendation.

The worker was engaged by the employer in two positions, the first was as a driver and also as a relief programme facilitator. He works like this until 2019 when upon the appointment of a new supervisor, his facilitator hours were progressively reduced to the point where he found that he was not receiving any hours of this nature. Despite his making repeated representations at a local level the issue was not addressed in any substantive fashion and this necessitated him raising a formal grievance. When he raised the matter formally,  he found he was not afforded access to due process and fair procedure as the employer failed to comply with its own procedure.

In 2019 there was a change to the contracts of employment and his driving hours were increased to 39 hours per week (from 32) with effect from February 2020. The worker submitted that this was agreed in principle but with a very clearly documented understanding that it would not affect his relief contract hours. He noted that from April 2020 his hours increased to 39 hours per week on a permanent basis as a driver.  However, the facilitator hours were not provided to him thereafter. In November 2021 he lodged a formal grievance in accordance with the grievance procedure. There was some delay and Stage 2 was eventually disposed of on 21 February 2022 with the decision issuing the following July.

The Stage 2 decision was appealed in August 2022 which was within the procedure timeline however Stage 3 was not disposed of until 24 November with the decision issuing the subsequent February.

This matter was referred to the WRC as a result of the outcome not substantially addressing the grievance, after a significant delay, outside the timelines laid down within the procedure and that the outcome was in part factually incorrect in its determinations. Such was the incorrect basis for the outcomes that it was clear that the worker had been completely denied access to due process. 

The worker is seeking back pay of €9375 equating to 750 hours per year for three years together with compensation for the distress he suffered.

The employer disputes the allegations of the worker that it has failed to fully investigate the grievance and has denied him access to due process as a result. He submitted a grievance on 19 November 2021 and the employer submitted that this has been investigated in full and dealt with in line with its grievance policy.

The employer noted that the complainant attended an informal grievance meeting as part of Stage 1 of its grievance policy in October 2021. He subsequently escalated the grievance to a Stage 2 on the following complaint “the core issue is the refusal of management to utilise my relief programme facilitator contract as agreed before the mutual agreement to terminate my maintenance contract in 2020”.

The employer submitted that due to the COVID pandemic there were delays in scheduling a Stage 2 grievance meeting and this was eventually held in February 2022.  The employer submitted that the grievance was fully investigated and finalised with an investigation outcome furnished to the complainant and his union on 27 July 2022. The complainant then lodged an appeal which was dealt with and fully finalised.

The employer also submitted that there were delays due to not being able to access its documentation as a result of the hacking and ransomware issue that affected Health services throughout Ireland during this period.

The employer noted that the complainant fully participated in the grievance process assisted by his trade union representative. It noted that the process was finalised, meetings of the grievance meeting and outcome reports for the grievance, and appeal meetings were issued to the complainant and his representative.  The employer submitted that this is clear indication that the respondent fully investigated the grievance and did not deny him access to due process.

The employer submitted that the reference to the WRC is unnecessarily wasteful on all parties and on the WRC.

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

Having reviewed documentation submitted by both parties to this dispute I note that the matter of the workers core grievance, the issue of his facilitator hours not being provided to him, was dealt with in the grievance procedure outcome letter.  I note that the worker was told that as a result of new procedures there were no guaranteed hours available, and that the employer had not outsourced the hours to an alternative provider nor were any hours given to alternative in-house staff.

As such, in the circumstances, I do not consider that the matter was left unconsidered by the employer.  As to the delay in timeframes for issuing responses and outcomes to the complainant, I note that there were delays involved and that the employer made reference to the difficulties both in terms of the Covid 19 pandemic and in respect of access to its documentation which was affected by the ransomware attack on the health systems during the period when it was undertaking to look at the grievance raised by the worker.

In the circumstances, I find that the employer gave adequate consideration to the grievances raised by the worker, including providing a comprehensive grievance outcome report.  Although the delays in reporting back were frustrating, the employer apologised for the delays and provided reasons for some of the delay to the worker.

IR complaint – delay in processing complaints taken under grievance procedures