This website contains decisions and determinations of both the Labour Court and the WRC. It also contains decisions and recommendations of the Equality Tribunal since 1996 and post 2007 determinations of the Employment Appeals Tribunal. For more information click here

LCR22799

FULL RECOMMENDATION


CD/23/183
RECOMMENDATION  NO.  LCR22799

SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969


PARTIES:
MOORE CLEANING SERVICES LTD

- AND -

A WORKER


DIVISION:

Chairman: Mr Haugh
Employer Member: Mr O'Brien
Worker Member: Ms Treacy


SUBJECT:

1. Complaint Under Section 20(1) Of The Industrial Relation Act 1969

BACKGROUND:

2. This dispute concerns a claim of unfair treatment. The Worker referred this case to the Labour Court on 15 June 2023 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 28th July 2023.


WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:

1. The worker claims that she was treated unfairly by Management after she raised a grievance and throughout the grievance procedure.


COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

1. The Company states that they completed an investigation upon notice of the grievance, that they carried out the grievance procedure and that the worker was treated fairly .





RECOMMENDATION:

Background to the Referral

This matter was referred to the Court pursuant to section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (‘the Act’).

Subject Matter of the Dispute

The Worker submitted that she was treated unfairly in a number of respects when employed by her former employer, Moore Cleaning Services Limited (‘the Company’), as a cleaner at one of its client sites. She told the Court that she raised a grievance in relation to the alleged unfair treatment utilising the mechanisms provided for in the Company’s grievance policy.

It is common case that a grievance meeting took place at the Company’s offices on 7 March 2023 and that the Worker - although on notice that she was entitled to be accompanied at that meeting – attended alone. Two management representatives were present.

Management’s position is that it had initiated an investigation into the various complaints that the Worker had set out in an email to them on 18 January 2023 and that it had interviewed the work colleagues named by the Worker in her complaint following receipt of the Worker’s email. The principal of the company told the Court that a letter issued to the Worker after the grievance meeting advising her that her complainants had not been upheld as they did not constitute a work-related grievance but were considered to be in the nature of a personal dispute with the Worker’s former supervisor and neighbour.

The Worker was unhappy with the outcome of the grievance process and referred a dispute to the Workplace Relations Commission on 16 March 2023 under section 13 of the Act but the Company opted not to participate in that process.

Discussion and Recommendation

Having considered the Parties’ written and oral submissions, the Court is satisfied that the Company applied its own procedures correctly and afforded the Worker a reasonable and fair opportunity to air the issues of concern to her. That being the case, the Court does not recommend any further steps be taken by the Company in relation the matter that is the subject of the within referral.

The Court so recommends.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
SOC ______________________
AUG 2023 Deputy Chairman


NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sinead O'Connor, Court Secretary.