Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

An Employer

Representatives

Judy McNamara IBEC

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 - 00002799

28/06/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00002800

28/06/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00002801

28/06/2024

The Worker referred three disputes to the WRC for investigation, claiming that both a verbal warning and a final written warning had been unfairly imposed on him, and that he had been subjected to unfair treatment and bullying following a complaint he made about the Production Manager.

IR - SC – 00002799:

The Worker asserts that the verbal warning issued to him on 31st January 2024, following the conclusion of the Respondent’s disciplinary process, was unfair.

IR - SC – 00002800:

The Worker asserts that the final warning issued to him on 18th April 2024, following the conclusion of the Respondent’s disciplinary process, was unfair.

IR - SC – 00002801:

Further to a complaint made by him following an incident with the Production Manager on 29th May 2023, the Worker stated that he was subjected to excessive monitoring of work, unfair accusations, bad treatment and bullying.

IR - SC – 00002799:

The Employer stated that that the process followed in relation to the imposition of the verbal warning was fair, transparent and reasonable and the Worker simply does not agree with the outcome.

IR - SC – 00002800:

The Employer stated that that the process followed in relation to the imposition of the final written warning was fair, transparent and reasonable and the Worker simply does not agree with the outcome.

IR - SC – 00002801:

The Employer disputed the Worker’s suggestion that he became the object of excessive monitoring of work, unfair accusations, bad treatment and bullying following a complaint that he made about the Production Manager.

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

IR - SC – 00002799:

This complaint relates to the imposition of a verbal warning, issued to the Worker on 31 January 2024, and which remained on his file for a period of six months.

As the warning has now expired, I recommend that the Worker deems this dispute to be closed.

IR - SC – 00002800:

This complaint relates to the imposition of a final written warning, issued to the Worker on 18 April 2024, and which remained on his file for a period of twelve months.

As the warning has now expired, I recommend that the Worker deems this dispute to be closed.

IR - SC – 00002801:

I noted that the Worker only initiated the Employer’s grievance procedure based on inappropriate behaviour by the Production Manager on 29 May 2023. However, he did not utilise the grievance procedure to raise a further complaint regarding the excessive monitoring of his work, unfair accusations, poor treatment, and bullying that he claimed to have experienced after lodging the initial grievance

It is well established that before bringing a grievance to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), a Worker must firstly exhaust the internal procedures available at their workplace. In Gregory Geoghegan trading as TAPS v. A Worker INT1014, the Labour Court held: “The Court is not prepared to insert itself into the procedural process in a situation where the dispute procedures have been bypassed.”

Given that the internal procedures have not been exhausted with respect to the excessive monitoring of work, unfair accusations, bad treatment and bullying that he stated he was subjected to after bringing the initial grievance, I am unable to intervene in the procedural process.