Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Worker

Employer

Representatives

  Self-represented

Employee Relations Manager

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 - 00002181

26/01/2024

The dispute referred by the Worker concerned a grievance procedure invoked by the Worker in July 2022, and management having delayed that procedure.

The Worker’s application to the Workplace Relations Commission refers to the Employer’s management of a grievance procedure invoked by the Worker in July 2022.  A mediation requested by or on behalf of the Worker in or around June 2023 did not progress.  Management informed the Worker that she had the wrong idea of what mediation was about after the Worker emailed her agenda.

The Worker was emailing the Director of Operations throughout the relevant period asking for a mediation date and the Director never came back to the Worker with a date.  An offer of mediation with the Employer’s personnel mediating would have been unfair.

The Worker is seeking to return to work with the Employer or to avail of the injured at work scheme.

The Worker invoked the grievance procedure in July 2022. 

The Worker raised 13 issues in a meeting with the Director of Nursing in September 2022. 

The Director of Nursing’s report on the outcome of stage 1 of the grievance procedure issued in May 2023.  The report upheld 2 of the 13 issues raised by the Worker and all recommendations arising from that report have been implemented. The Worker was dissatisfied with the outcome at stage 1 and initiated stage 2 of the procedure.  The hospital’s Director of Operations was appointed to deal with stage 2.  The Worker’s solicitor at the time suggested mediation and the Director of Operations was happy to do that.  The Director of Operations engaged with the solicitor and tried to find alternative roles for the Worker that met with occupational health recommendations.  The Worker instructed the Employer’s personnel not to contact the Worker directly but for everything to go through her solicitor.  The Employer was then informed in January 2024 that the solicitor was no longer representing the Worker.   The Worker was at all material times represented and was not disadvantaged in any way in relation to the proposed mediation. 

The Worker invoked stage 2 of the Employer’s grievance procedure; that stage had not been exhausted at the time of referral of this dispute to the Commission, nor did the Worker seek to move to stage 3 at local level.

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

The Worker raised various issues when she invoked the Employer’s grievance procedure in July 2022, including the issue of appropriate measures or accommodation for a disability.  Submissions from the Worker referred to alleged manipulation by management of the grievance procedure and to the stage 1 outcome not addressing the Worker’s desired outcome of a reasonable accommodated role.

The Worker and Employer both expressed frustration with the current status quo with the Worker out of work since August 2022.  The Worker is seeking a return to work or access to the injured at work scheme.  The Employer’s position is that it does not have an appropriate role for the Worker in the hospital.  It strikes me that there has not been focused and sustained engagement to date between the parties on the situation.  This is not attributable to one party but suffice to say that the attention and efforts of both parties is required in this regard.

The purpose of the Commission in relation to disputes referred under the Industrial Relations Act 1969, as amended, is to make a recommendation in resolution of the dispute between the parties. 

Having carefully reviewed the documentation before me and reflected on the nature of this dispute, the unavoidable position is that the principal matters complained of in this trade dispute were also the subject matter of justiciable claims made by the Worker against the Employer under the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015.  The mediation proposal during stage 2 of the grievance procedure, in respect of which the Worker complains of undue delay and avoidance by management, arose in the context of exploring reasonable accommodation for the Worker.  The Worker’s mediation agenda is clearly related to matters falling within the scope of equality legislation.

In this case, the trade dispute referred by the Worker overlaps with employment rights claims or justiciable matters.

I do not consider it appropriate, nor do I see any value from a dispute resolution perspective in addressing matters the subject of, or related to justiciable claims or employment rights matters by way of investigation and recommendation in the voluntarist industrial relations framework.

I recommend that the parties accept that no useful purpose can be served by the Commission making an industrial relations recommendation in the circumstances of this case. 

Trade dispute – Parallel proceedings – Justiciable claims -Recommendation