LCR23115

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Trade Dispute.

BACKGROUND:

The Worker referred this case to the Labour Court on 16 October 2024 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 12 February 2025.

RECOMMENDATION:

The Worker lodged a complaint to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and so agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.

A hearing of the Court was held on 12 February 2025.

The Court received a letter on behalf of the employer stating that it respectfully declined the invitation to attend the hearing. The letter further stated that the employer had also declined to attend a Conciliation hearing and an Adjudication hearing in relation to the worker’s complaint on the basis that no disciplinary sanction issued to the Worker and there was no live or expired disciplinary sanction on her file.

The Worker submitted that matter before the Court relates to an investigation into a workplace matter that arose in 2021 during the Covid-19 pandemic.  The Worker contends that she was subject to an entirely flawed and inappropriate investigation into allegations of wrongdoing, contrary to fair procedures and in conflict with the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary procedures. She submits that there was no basis for subjecting her to an investigation and the conduct of the investigation was biased.  The Worker contends that because of that investigation, she was subject to a disciplinary sanction and feels that she has suffered ongoing victimisation.

The Court is conscious that its role in disputes such as these is to make a recommendation that can assist the parties bring a resolution to a matter in dispute.

In this case, the Worker case holds a genuinely held belief that an investigation process conducted by her employer in 2021 was flawed and did not comply with natural justice.  As the employer did not attend the hearing, the Court was deprived of any understanding of the employer’s perspective.

On the basis of the uncontested submission of the Worker, the Court can only conclude that procedures used in conducting a workplace investigation in 2021 were flawed.

The Court recognises that the matter before it has been a protracted process for the Worker concerned.  In that regard, it is unclear why the Employer objected to a WRC Adjudication Officer investigating the Worker’s dispute when it did, which has ultimately led to further delays in seeking a resolution to the matter in dispute.

The long-standing position of the Labour Court is to uphold agreed and established dispute resolution procedures. The Court recommends that going forward the parties are best served by fully utilising the established procedures in place in the employment, paying attention to the application of those procedures in a fair and timely manner.

Noting all the above, and given the passage of time, the Court recommends that the parties accept the matter to be closed.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
AR	______________________
25th February 2025	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Aidan Ralph, Court Secretary.