Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Bus Driver

A Transport Provider

Representatives

Lilian O'Flynn, SIPTU

Senior Manager, Employee Relations

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 - 00003498

02/12/2024

The Worker has been working for the Employer for the past 18 years as a bus driver.

He referred his dispute regarding the delay of an investigation of his grievance to the Director General of the WRC on 2 December 2024.

SIPTU, on behalf of the Worker submits as follows.

On 2 November 2023 the Worker lodged a grievance against a Service Manager, Mr A through the Chairperson of SIPTU to the Service Delivery Manager, Mr B by email.

On 16 November 2023, the Chairperson of SIPTU emailed requesting an update. He received no response and followed up by email on 20 December 2023.

The Worker contacted the Head of Operations in early January 2024 requesting an update. On 15 February 2024, the Senior Manager, Employee Relations emailed the Worker informing him that he would investigate the matter and revert to him.

The Worker emailed the Senior Manager on 27 March 2024 seeking an update.

On 4 April 2024, the Worker received an email from the Senior Manager requesting him to attend a meeting on 11 April 2024 where he would hear his grievance. This meeting was then cancelled by the Senior Manager and rescheduled to 22 April 2024.

At the meeting on 22 April 2024, the Senior Manager informed the Worker that he would hear the grievance under Stage C of the Employer’s Grievance Policy.

On 7 May 2024, the Senior Manager sent the notes of the meeting to the Worker for his perusal. The Worker reverted with his amendments on 23 May 2024.

SIPTU referred the Worker’s dispute to the WRC on 2 December 2024 as the Employer was unnecessary delaying the investigation of the Worker’s grievance.

Notice of the WRC hearing as received on 6 March 2025.

Following on from this, the Senor Manager sent an email to the Worker with the outcome of the grievance investigation. He had not upheld any of the Worker’s grievances but recommended that the Worker and the Service Manager have a meeting which could be facilitated by the HR or, alternatively, mediation could be a solution.

It is contended that the Employer has significantly delayed the grievance process and only issued the outcome when prompted by the WRC hearing date.

SIPTU argument

The Worker was not afforded access to due process and fair procedure as the Employer failed to comply with its own timeline.

The grievance was raised on 2 November 2023. The first and only hearing took place 5 months later, on 22 April 2024. The outcome of the grievance was issued on 11 April 2025, 12 months after the grievance meeting and 17 months after the grievance was raised.

It is submitted that the Employer took 17 months to hear the Worker’s grievance, where in accordance with its policy it should have been completed within 9 days.

In support of its claim, SIPTU relied on ADJ-00039602 Nurse v Medical Provider and IR-SC-00001322 An Employee v An Employer.

In conclusion, SIPTU submits that the length of time that it has taken to investigate this grievance is well beyond the timeframes in the Employer’s policy. The Worker was under stress while working throughout this period.

At the adjudication hearing, the Worker said that he found it hard as he had to work with the Operations Manager on a daily basis during the process. 

The Employer submits as follows.

The Worker commenced employment with the Employer in March 2007 as a Bus Driver.

In late 2023, the Worker raised a number of complaints against a named coworker. This complaint was submitted locally to the Service Delivery Manager and subsequently forwarded to the HR department. In early 2024 the complaint was forwarded to the Senior Manager, Employee Relations for investigation consistent with the Employer’s Individual(s) Grievance Procedure and in April 2024 a meeting with the Worker was arranged.

Individual(s) Grievance Procedure

This procedure prescribes four separate stages (A-D). Each stage has different nuances, is progressive and allows for an appeal.

Stage A is normally somewhat informal, and heard between employee and immediate supervisor Stage B is more formal and requires the grievance to be submitted in writing. It is investigated by the employee’s immediate local manager and it may or may not involve an oral hearing. Stage C is a further escalation and is normally investigated by a senior manager in the company. Stage D is the final stage of the procedure and is where the matter may be referred to an agreed third party for investigation.

The Worker’s complaint was investigated at Stage C.

Background to Grievance

The grievance submitted by the Worker contained 10 separate complaints, which pertained to a number of his previous interactions with Mr A, People Operations Manager. Following an investigation meeting in April 2024, the Employer discounted 3 of those complaints and the reason for same was explained in the outcome letter issued to the Worker on 11 March 2025. The 7 remaining complaints were investigated.

Outcome, following investigation into Grievance

This grievance was investigated by the Senior Manager, Employee Relations during 2024, with the outcome issuing in March 2025.

Following careful consideration of all the evidence available, the Senior Manager wrote to the Worker on 11 March 2025 in which he stated:

‘While there was no evidence to uphold any of [the Worker’s] complaints, it is evident that he continues to feel aggrieved based on a number of previous interactions with [the People Operations Manager]. Conversely, in discussions with [the People Operations Manager], a similar feeling exists whereby he is clearly aggrieved with the complaints presented by [the Worker].

While I am closing this grievance, I believe that a follow meeting is required between the parties as a means to return [the Worker] and [the People Operations Manager] to a positive working relationship. This meeting can be facilitated by HR, or alternatively mediation might be a solution.

I would suggest that this meeting occurs within a reasonable time period, and I will communicate this recommendation to both parties.’

The Worker replied to the Senior Manager on 22 April 2025 to indicate his willingness to participate in mediation, and arrangements for same are currently being made.

Conclusion

In late 2023 the Worker raised a grievance at stage C level. Notwithstanding the undue delay in hearing this matter, each of the Worker’s complaints were investigated thoroughly, fairly and independently. While the grievance was investigated during 2024, it is regrettable that there was a significant delay in issuing the final outcome to the Worker. There were no grounds to uphold any of the Worker’s complaints and the case was closed. It was acknowledged, however, that there was an underlying breakdown in the relationship between the Worker and the People Operations Manager and for that reason an offer of mediation was proposed (and accepted by the Worker).

At the adjudication hearing, the Senior Manager accepted that there was undue delay in issuing of the decision rather than in the investigation of the matter. He apologised for same.

The Senior Manager noted that he had made contact with an independent external mediator. He had also held a number of conversations with the People Operations Manager and is awaiting his reply as to whether he would be willing to participate in mediation. The Senior Manager said that the People Operations Manager is to revert in the next few days and mediation would take 7-10 days thereafter, if he agrees to it.

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

The dispute arises from an allegation by the Worker that the Employer failed to investigate his grievance within a reasonable timeframe. 

The Employer did not dispute that the delay was undue and apologised to the Worker. Following the WRC correspondence regarding the hearing, the Employer issued the outcome of the grievance and took steps to arrange mediation between the parties involved.

Mediation is a voluntary process and, while I note that the Worker is willing to participate in same, it was unclear at the date of the hearing whether the People Operations Manager would agree to take part in the process. With pragmatism and common sense in mind, I find that it would be pointless to recommend such mediation if the People Operations Manager was unwilling to do so. Having said that, in the event that he does, I recommend that the Employer takes all necessary steps to arrange an independent mediator and conduct the mediation as soon as possible but within a month from the date of this recommendation at the latest. In the circumstance where the two individuals involved are required to work together, any further delay could further damage an already fraught relationship.

In addition, I recommend that the Employer pay the Worker the sum of €1,000 for the delay and the manner in which the Employer dealt with the matter.

I recommend that the Employer pay the Worker the sum of €1,000 for the delay and the manner in which the Employer dealt with the matter.

Should both workers express willingness to participate in mediation, I recommend that the Employer makes all necessary arrangements to conduct mediation as soon as possible but within a month from the date of this recommendation at the latest.

Delay- grievance