ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969

Investigation Recommendation Reference:  IR - SC - 00003166

Dispute:

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Date of Hearing:             27/02/2025

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended) following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute.

Background:

The Worker was in dispute with his Employer relating to grievance and disciplinary issues.

Summary of Workers Case:

The Worker outlined the history of his employment and his grievances in relation to his employer.

He was employed as a greenskeeper from 13th June 2022 until 8th November 2024.  He worked 24 hours per week and was paid €304.80.

His problems with the Employer started in July 2024 when he had a flood in his kitchen at home and failed to let his supervisor know he could not come into work.  He did not wish to disclose his domestic situation and he now realises this was a mistake, that he should have informed the Supervisor.

When he was called to a meeting to discuss this, he was surprised to see a reference to an incident in March 2024 regarding machinery being stuck on soft ground.  He refused to sign the minutes of the meeting as he believed this was a common occurrence and other colleagues had been stuck on soft ground after bad weather.  He was told he was receiving a verbal warning.

The next incident happened on 9th August 2024 when he was called to a meeting by his Supervisor and told there was a complaint about him driving machinery in an erratic manner.  He was then unfairly removed from driving machinery.  He was also accused of not following instructions.  This was in relation to using a strimmer to cut thistles instead of a hedge strimmer.

He was sent out to hand rake bunkers as he was not allowed to use machinery.  He then fell over a wasps nest and suffered an allergic reaction to stings and was out of work for 2 days.

He contacted the Irish Human Rights Commission who told him he did not have to stay in work if the treatment of him was having an effect on his disability.  So he left work an hour early on 19th August 2024.

He tried to raise a grievance a number of times, and when he believed his grievance was finally going to be heard, he discovered the meeting turned into a disciplinary meeting.  He submitted a number of text messages, and letters to illustrate the situation.  In some he was asking officials from the club to arrange a meeting to hear his grievances.  He could not go back to work after tr 19th August due to the stress.

Letter dated 20th September 2024 sent by the Employer to the Worker:

You have not attended for work since 19th August when your duties were amended for health & safety reasons, and you have not made contact to explain your non-attendance since then. This means that you are currently on Unauthorised Absence which is very serious and is o matter we must resolve as soon as possible. lf you are unhappy about any particular issue or decision then the correct approach is for you to use our Grievance Procedure. That states no precipitative action should be taken until all stages of the procedure have been fully exhausted and duties should be carried out under protest if necessary. You have been provided with a copy of the Grievance Procedure as you requested, but have not submitted a grievance, and you declined to attend the meeting we suggested. This unauthorised absence cannot continue and I am therefore arranging a meeting for us to discuss your absence, the reasons for it, and how we can address these. I should stress that this is an absence review meeting, not a disciplinary or grievance meeting. I must also stress that this is not an optional meeting - as an employee absent from work you are required to attend a meeting to discuss your absence. Failure to attend the meeting and continued non-attendance at work will give us cause to consider whether you have in fact abandoned your employment (with the Golf Club).

This letter gave him a number of options for dates to attend a meeting.  He would not attend the meeting as he believed his employer had breached a number of employment laws.

Summary of Employer’s Case:

The complainant was employed as a general worker on the course staff from June 8, 2022, to November 8, 2024.

Complaint

A complaint has been referred for adjudication under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969:

Claim CA-00066165-001:

The Claimant has raised multiple grievances, citing delays, exclusion, and inadequate responses from the Respondent. The Claimant alleges that their initial grievance, raised on 20th August 2024, was ignored until 2nd September, resulting in procedural delays and frustration. The Claimant alleges that efforts to engage with their supervisor were allegedly dismissed, and they were not provided with workplace policies or terms of employment until after the grievance was raised, hindering resolution. Allegations of bullying, exclusion, and differential treatment—such as being assigned menial tasks leading to injury—were reportedly not investigated. Additionally, the employee objected to the inclusion of an unrelated incident from March 2024 during a grievance meeting, perceiving it as unjustified and contributing to their sense of unfair treatment. The Claimant submitted a formal letter outlining their grievances on 26th September 2024, which was received by the WRC on 1st October 2024.

Staffing Levels:

The Club's staffing levels consist of four full-time employees working on the golf course, including the Course Superintendent (Head Greenkeeper), and three skilled machine operators. The Claimant was an additional employee in this category who used light machinery e.g., the Bunker Rake, small Tractor and the Cushman – a light utility vehicle. The Club also employs a part-time office administrator who works Monday to Friday from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m., and one individual responsible for managing competitions, maintaining the Clubhouse, and handling opening and closing duties. This constitutes the entirety of the Club's paid workforce, with all other work carried out on a voluntary basis. The Professional Golfer is self-employed and operates the Proshop, while the restaurant services are subcontracted to a professional caterer. It should be noted that the three skilled machine operators are members of SIPTU; however, the claimant did not join the union upon their employment.

Response:

The Respondent asserts that they took reasonable steps to address the Claimant's concerns and adhered to appropriate procedures as outlined in company policy. The Respondent highlights that they were addressing two distinct workplace issues with the Claimant. The first involved an alleged grievance raised by the Claimant, which he failed to engage with despite the Respondent's efforts. The second issue concerned the Claimant's unauthorized absence from work, during which they made the decision not to return to the workplace pending adjudication with the WRC. During this period, the Claimant did not provide any medical certificates to justify their absence, nor did they respond to the Respondent's communications. The Respondent contends that the Claimant had effectively abandoned their duties. While the Claimant alleges that the Respondent failed to properly investigate claims of bullying or follow procedures, the evidence indicates that the Respondent acted promptly and appropriately within their capacity.

The Claimant has a history of walking off the job when issues arise, rather than utilizing the company’s established procedures. On September 29, 2023, following an alleged incident with his supervisor, the Claimant left the premises without engaging with the grievance procedures in place. In response, management promptly addressed the situation by writing to the Claimant on October 10, 2023, through the club secretary. This communication emphasized his unauthorized absence, failure to contact his supervisor, and reminded him of the grievance policy, ensuring he was fully aware of his right to formally raise concerns and have representation during the process. On October 12, 2023, the employee responded via email, stating that his absence was due to a disagreement with his supervisor. In line with the club's grievance policy, management took further steps to address the issue, with an invitation issuing to the employee on October 16, 2023, to attend a meeting scheduled for October 19, 2023, to discuss his concerns. The letter once again reminded the employee of his right to representation at the meeting. A meeting took place with 2 members of the then Management Committee and the matter was talked through. The respondents view leaving that meeting was that the matter had been resolved and this was subsequently confirmed in the reply by email received from the Claimant that he was returning to work and that the matter was resolved.

The respondent can issue a verbal warning without a full investigation if the facts are straightforward and undisputed. In this case, the Claimant admitted to being absent without notifying their supervisor, citing personal reasons they wished to keep private. However, their disclosure about a private domestic issue suggests that the situation might involve mitigating circumstances only came to the attention of the employer when the Claimant submitted a formal letter outlining their grievances to the WRC on 26th September 2024. Since the Claimant admitted their absence and failure to inform their manager, the facts are straightforward, and a full investigation may not be necessary. However, their disclosure about a private domestic issue suggests that the situation might involve mitigating circumstances. In this case, the employee admitted to being absent without notifying their supervisor, citing personal reasons they wished to keep private.

Evaluating whether the nature of the incident from 25 March 2024 warrants addressing it after such a significant delay. For less serious issues, raising the matter several months later might appear excessive or unwarranted. The employee exercised his right not to sign the verbal warning and returned to work as scheduled on August 7, 2024. As the employee was already familiar with the grievance procedure from a previous complaint, he was fully aware that this process was available to him should he wish to appeal the verbal warning concerning the inclusion of the incident of the 25 March 2024. Upon returning to work on 7th August 2024, the Claimant alleged unfair treatment regarding raking duties, which were assigned to him on the 14th August 2024. These are standard responsibilities for course staff. The Claimant also raised concerns about being treated differently in relation to a tractor incident. However, the issue arose on the 25 March 2024 because the Claimant drove the tractor to an area where he had no valid reason to be. The Claimant assigned task was repairing divots on fairways, yet the nearest fairway was 70–80 meters away from where the tractor became stuck near the 13th tee box, on a severe slope which was not on his route. Despite being asked for an explanation, he has not provided a satisfactory or any response. While it is understood that machines can get stuck during legitimate tasks such as cutting rough grass or transporting materials, these circumstances did not align with operational needs, undermining the Claimants claim of unfair treatment and highlighting accountability for his actions.

On 26th September 2024, the Claimant submitted a formal letter to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) outlining their grievances. In the letter, the Claimant stated that they had sought advice from the Human Rights Authority, which allegedly advised him of their right to leave the workplace under health and safety regulations if the situation was having an unbearable effect on their disability. The Claimant also alleged that they attempted to have a conversation with their manager, who they claimed walked away during the discussion. This submission to the WRC marked the first time the company was made aware of any disability.

A number of WhatsApp messages between the Claimant and the Club Captain were submitted. 

On 27th August 2024, the Claimant was invited to attend a disciplinary meeting regarding allegations of leaving work on 19th August 2024 without notifying their manager, as well as failing to adhere to the company's absence policy. In response to the invitation, the Claimant sent an email on 28th August 2024 stating: "I am writing this email to inform you that I will not be attending the meeting on Thursday, 29th August at 10 am. J and M are well informed of my reasons for absence since Monday, 19th August at 11 am. I have requested multiple grievance meetings from both parties to no avail." 

On the 2nd September 2024, following a request from the Claimant a copy of the Clubs Grievance Policy was posted to the Claimant. As no formal grievance was raised by the Claimant, the company secretary sought the assistance of an external HR consultant to mediate and help resolve the issue. On 30th October 2024, an external HR and Employee Relations Consultant, emailed the employee as follows:

Dear (Worker),

I have been approached by (the) Golf Club to assist as an HR consultant in engaging and mediating with you to explore possible resolutions regarding your current grievances and dissatisfaction with the organization and your role. I note that you have been absent since August 19th and would like to inquire about your current employment status with the organization. Would you be available to schedule a call to discuss this further? If so, please feel free to suggest a date and time that suits you.

On 1st December 2024, the Claimant submitted a formal letter to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) where he acknowledged receipt of communication, but failed to engage with HR consultant.

On November 4, 2024, Captain and Officer in Charge wrote to the Claimant regarding their employment status, as they had been on unauthorized absence since August 19, 2024.  That letter stated:

Following our previous correspondence regarding your absence from work, I must inform you that, as of November 8, 2024, we have not received any communication or documentation from you concerning your unauthorized leave, which began on August 19, 2024. ln employment terms, abandonment occurs when an employee fails to attend work for an extended period without providing notice or a valid reason and does not respond to the employer's efforts to establish contact. Given this definition and the absence of any response or explanation from you, we now consider that you have abandoned your position. Consequently, your employment with (the) Golf Club is deemed to have ended as of November 8, 2024. Any leave entitlements or outstanding pay will be processed up to and including this date. You have the right to appeal this decision. lf you wish to do so, please submit your appeal within five working days of receiving this letter to the Honorary Secretary by post or email to ....@gmail.com 

On November 19, 2024, the Captain and Officer in Charge, wrote to the Claimant confirming a payment of €1,806.51, which covered the notice period and any outstanding leave that the Claimant had not taken.

Conclusion:

The Golf Club acted in a fair and consistent manner throughout its interactions with the Claimant, ensuring adherence to its grievance and disciplinary policies while balancing operational needs. Despite efforts to address the Claimant's concerns, including arranging grievance meetings, providing procedural documentation, and engaging an external HR consultant, the Claimant repeatedly failed to engage constructively, which hindered resolution. The Respondent acknowledges that the Claimant raised allegations of bullying, exclusion, and differential treatment, as well as concerns about procedural delays. However, evidence demonstrates that the Respondent acted promptly and appropriately within its capacity, addressing concerns transparently and providing multiple opportunities for the Claimant to engage. The inclusion of mitigating measures, such as reminding the Claimant of their right to representation and seeking third-party mediation, highlights the Respondent’s commitment to resolving the dispute. The Claimant’s pattern of unauthorized absences, refusal to attend scheduled meetings, and failure to disclose relevant information, including details about a previously unreported disability, further complicated the situation. The Respondent provided all necessary grievance and disciplinary policies, clarified expectations regarding workplace procedures, and ensured that the Claimant was fully informed of their rights and responsibilities. Ultimately, the Claimant’s continued failure to engage, coupled with their unauthorized absence from August 19, 2024, to the termination of their employment on November 8, 2024, led to the Respondent reasonably concluding that the Claimant had abandoned their position. The Respondent fulfilled its statutory obligations by issuing payment for the notice period and any outstanding entitlements, reflecting its compliance with employment laws.  Golf Club remains committed to fostering a fair and respectful workplace, underscoring the importance of mutual engagement and adherence to established processes in resolving employment disputes.

Conclusions:

I note the Employer had a number of issues regarding attendance, work practices and safety at work practices by the Worker.  He was given the opportunity to have his case heard and be accompanied or represented in meetings.   He in turn had a number of grievances which he contends the Employer failed to address.  I note the letter from the HR Consultant to him with the offer of mediation.  The failure to respond indicates a lack of any serious intention on the part of the Worker to have his grievances aired and given the opportunity of resolution. The Industrial Relations Act 1969 is designed to offer recommendations on resolution to disputes between the Worker and the Employer.  I note the Worker has submitted a number of other complaints which were heard under Employment Rights legislation.  In all of the circumstances, where the employment rights issues are addressed in a separate decision, and where the Worker declined to either make a formal complaint to the Employer or partake in mediation, I do not find in favour of the Worker.

Recommendation:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.  I do not find in favour of the Worker.

Dated:   02nd of May 2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Key Words: