ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00003066
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | Project Manager | Service Agency |
Representatives | Peter Glynn SIPTU | Peter Gilfedder IBEC |
Dispute:
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 - 00003066 | 30/08/2024 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Date of Hearing: 13/02/2025
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969 (as amended by the Workplace Relations Act 2015 so as to include Adjudication Officers) and where a trade dispute (not specifically precluded by Sect. 13) has been identified and has been referred to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission, the said Director General will then refer such a dispute to an Adjudication Officer, so appointed, for the purpose of having the said dispute heard in similar manner as has been set out in Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act which allows the Adjudication Officer to investigate a matter raised. The Adjudication Officer will additionally and where appropriate hear all relevant oral evidence/testimony of the parties and their witnesses and will also take into account any and all documentary or other evidence which may be tendered in the course of the hearing.
A Trade Dispute in this context will include any dispute between an employer and a worker which is connected with the employment or the non-employment, or with the terms and conditions relating to and/or affecting the employment of any person.
I have confirmed that the Complainant herein is a Worker within the meaning of the Acts, and I have conducted an investigation into the said trade dispute as described in Section 13. It is noted that Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969 empowers me to make a recommendation or recommendations to disputing parties on foot of any investigation so conducted. In making such recommendations, I am obliged to set out my opinion on the merits of the dispute and the positions taken by the parties thereto. I note that any consideration on the merits of the dispute will include an examination of the efforts made by the parties to exhaust any and all internal procedures or structures which ought to have been utilised before bringing the dispute to the attention of the WRC.
I acknowledge that the Adjudication process must avoid making a recommendation which has a collective impact on a body of workers.
Background:
This hearing was conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road, Dublin. In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) the hearing was conducted in recognition of the fact that all hearings should be conducted fairly and each side is entitled to be heard. The hearing was not conducted in public as it concerned a dispute brought under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969. As the within matter is a dispute between parties and brought before the WRC using the Industrial Relations Acts it was heard in private, and the recommendation is anonymised. Industrial Relations disputes are primarily heard on the basis of factual submissions provided by the respective parties. Relevant parties might be invited to give an oral recollection of events, facts and matters within their knowledge. Testimony may be subject to rebuttal by witnesses or other relevant contradicting evidence provided by the other side. The Specific Details of the Dispute are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 30th of August 2024. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The Complainant was represented by members of SIPTU who have acted for and on behalf of the Complainant through the process which has ultimately brought this matter before the WRC. I was provided with a comprehensive submission dated the 7th day of February 2025. The Complainant additionally relied on the narrative set out in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form. I was provided with supplemental documentary evidence in support of the Complainant’s case. The Complainant alleges that his Employer has failed, in the aftermath of an external investigation and recommendation having been made, to engage in a full exploration of all the options included in the final report. Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Respondent was represented by the business representative group known as IBEC. The Respondent provided me with a written submissions dated the 7th of February 2025. I have heard from a witness in the person of Ms.PR the People Operations Manager. No objection was raised in connection with any of the documentary evidence relied upon by the Respondent in the course of making its case. The Respondent rejects that it has not explored all options suggested in the final recommendations made as part of an outcome to a Grievance process initiated by the Complainant. Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute. |
Conclusions:
The Complainant has worked in the Respondent organisation since 1988. From March to October 2021, the Complainant was appointed to an Acting-up role. This was to cover a period of sick leave. Upon completion of this role, he reverted to his original role. From conversations he had with Management the Complainant was led to believe that he had carried out his duties and functions in an exceptional way and that he was an asset that they wanted to keep. Ultimately, and from conversations held, the Complainant understood that there was a commitment to him that he would progress very soon to a more senior position with the associated responsibility for management. The Complainant inferred this to mean (per the Respondent) that the commitment was not reliant on conditional elements. The role never materialised for the Complainant and eventually he triggered a Grievance against the Employer which Grievance was overseen by an independent arbiter - Mr. McG. On the 2nd of May 2024, Mr McG completed his grievance investigation report. The Complainant indicated before me at the WRC hearing that he was generally happy with the Investigation conducted and the outcome articulated by Mr. McG. As part of his report, Mr McG made recommendations for the parties to explore. He noted that the: “obvious solution” is a “mediated departure on mutually agreed terms but this, apparently is not, for some reason, an available option”. He then noted that for the Complainant to remain in the organisation that: “Either he gets a fresh start in a new area, or he is encouraged to progress within his existing one, but the question of his relationships with his existing managers may have to be dealt with as part of that part of the equation.” Mr McG also recommended that with either option, the Complainant should receive: “support and coaching to prove to him that he can still have a viable career path in the organisation”. He recommended that the Complainant must continue to: “get all necessary medical assistance needed”. In conclusion, Mr McG also mentioned that the Complainant: “For his part, he needs to, with assurances and recognising the difficulty involved, resume a normal working life, put this unfortunate incident and his fixation on a no-longer-existing prize out of his mind and move on with, hopefully a successful career” In becoming before me, the Complainant asserts that, given the employment history, the employment relationship has irrevocably broken down and any and all attempts to ameliorate his position within the workplace are pointless. I understand that interpersonal relationships between the Complainant and other members of staff are too difficult to repair. In the circumstances I have been invited to consider the first option suggested by Mr. McG albeit MrMcG had immediately rejected same. This was the: “obvious solution” is a “mediated departure on mutually agreed terms but this, apparently is not, for some reason, an available option”. I am advised by the Respondent that the governing body will not entertain an exit package and am further advised that internal overtures have already been made in this regard. The Complainant has no knowledge of what was asked for (as part of the purported internal overtures) and equally he has no idea what the response was. There is no named decision maker and certainly no written decision refusing the request and giving reasons for the said refusal. I recognise that this is a procedurally weak proposition, where there must be an obligation on a decision-maker to cite reasons for the refusal. The Complainant is looking for an opportunity to have some input into making a case for allowing him to exit from the workplace with some dignity and with some financial certainty which might include compensation for the manner of his treatment. To be fair to the Respondent HR witness, she had no difficulty with this proposition and is willing to assist the Complainant prepare his case and can ensure that the proposition be placed into the hands of the appropriate party in the Governing Body.
|
Recommendation:
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969
IR - SC - 00003066
As noted, Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969 empowers me to make a recommendation or recommendations to disputing parties on foot of any investigation so conducted. In making such recommendations I am obliged to set out my opinion on the merits of the dispute and the positions taken by the parties thereto. Any consideration on the merits of the dispute will include an examination of the efforts made by the parties to exhaust any and all internal procedures or structures which ought to have been utilised before bringing the dispute to the attention of the WRC.
I am satisfied that I have set out my opinion on the merits of the dispute herein and make my recommendations as follows:
In the unique set of circumstances outlined, I am recommending that the Complainant and his Employer (through the HR personnel) prepare a submission for presentation to the Governing Body/Department requesting an exit mechanism for the Complainant.
I recommend that the Complainant will continue to engage as an Employee in his current role and further that the Complainant continue to engage with Management as appropriate in that role.
I am recommending that the Employer specifically requests that any decision made by the Governing Body/ Department will be made in writing, will be comprehensive, and that the author’s name and position will be clearly identified. A right of Appeal should be included.
Dated: 04th of April 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words:
|