LCR22665

1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No(S) ADJ-00034310, CA-00045309.

BACKGROUND:

2. This is an appeal on behalf of South Infirmary-Victoria University Hospital Limited (‘the Company’) from a Recommendation of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00034310, dated 5 May 2022) under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. Notice of Appeal was received on 3 June 2022. The Court heard the appeal in Limerick on 4 October 2022.




DECISION:

The dispute concerns the manner in which the Company handled a grievance raised by the Worker concerning alleged interference by named senior Managers in an interview process for a temporary appointment in the Worker’s department. The interview process took place in April 2017. The Worker first alerted Human Resources to her concerns in January 2019 and then submitted a detailed written grievance on 6 February 2019. The matter was deal with initially by the HR Manager who did not uphold the Worker’s grievance. The Worker unsuccessfully appealed the matter to Stage 3 of the Company’s procedures in October 2019 but did not receive an outcome until September 2020. She then sought a further appeal to the Company’s CEO who ultimately declined to consider the appeal. In the within referral under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, the Worker is seeking to have an independent investigator appointed to review the matters alleged in her original grievance. At first instance, the Adjudication Officer recommended concession of the claim and the engagement of an external independent investigator.

The Union’s Submission

It is submitted on the Worker’s behalf that her grievance was not processed in a fair and transparent manner by the Company as the timelines specified in the Company’s policy were not complied with and information was not forthcoming in relation to the basis for the decisions made at various stages of the process.

The Company’s Submission

It is submitted on the Company’s behalf that the Worker delayed for some two years before she initiated her grievance. The Company does not accept that it failed to follow its procedures when investigating the Worker’s grievance. It further submits that those procedures do not provide for the appointment of an external investigator. The Company also makes the case that the circumstances relevant to the alleged events on which the Worker’s grievance was founded have been superseded by the passage of time as what was in issue was the appointment of a colleague on a short-term temporary basis in 2017 and the colleague in question has long since vacated her temporary role.

Decision

The Court notes that the Worker has a long and unblemished record of service with the Company and that this is the only matter in respect of which she has ever raised a grievance in over forty years of service. The Court, however, upholds the Company’s appeal in the light of the length of time that has passed since the events that gave rise to the grievance are alleged to have occurred. In the circumstances, having regard to the reality that people’s memories of events become less reliable with the passage of time, in the Court’s view no useful purpose would be served by recommending that the Company incur the expense of appointing an external investigator to investigate matters of the nature that are alleged to have taken place back in 2017.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Alan Haugh
IK	______________________
8 November 2022	Deputy Chairman