ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00003265
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Worker | A Company |
Representatives | SIPTU | Construction Industry Federation |
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 - 00003265 | 10/10/2024 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Seamus Clinton
Date of Hearing: 28/04/2025
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 and to present any information relevant to the dispute. The hearing was held in the Hearing Rooms of the Workplace Relations Commision (WRC), Carlow. Both parties made detailed written submissions in advance of the hearing.
Background:
The worker reported an incident which took place with his supervisor to the HR Officer in January 2023. In April 2023, the grievance was closed as the worker had not signed off on the details of the grievance. Through his union representative, the worker sought to have the grievance processed. As the grievance was not progressed, the dispute was referred to the WRC in October 2024. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The worker was not satisfied that the recording of the incident by the HR Officer was fully accurate. Although there was a delay in clarifying his version of events, he always wanted the grievance to be processed. Although he was informed that the grievance was closed in April 2023, he submitted a further document in May 2024. He also followed the matter up with his union official who contacted the HR Officer on his behalf. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The employer outlined that there was a deadline for the worker to return a signed copy of the grievance so the matter could be dealt with in a speedy manner. As the worker did not sign off on his complaint, and as further time passed, the HR Officer closed the grievance process. This was on the basis that the matter could not be left in obeyance and in circumstances where there was no signed confirmation of the grievance. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions and details presented at the hearing. It is regrettable that the grievance has not been resolved to date. The Adjudicators role in this type of dispute is to make a recommendation on the procedural aspects of the dispute and not to get involved in the investigation of the grievance itself. Given the nature of the grievance, and despite the passing of time, there is still a requirement on the employer and worker to conclude the grievance, in accordance with agreed procedures.
I recommend that the employer process the grievance in accordance with the agreed procedures within one-month of the date of this recommendation. I further recommend that the HR Officer considers the documents dated 30th January 2023 and handwritten minutes of 5th May 2023, along with any other relevant information. To ensure full clarity on the grievance, I further recommend that the HR Officer meets with the worker and his union official. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I recommend that the employer process the grievance in accordance with the agreed procedures within one-month of the date of this recommendation. I further recommend that the HR Officer considers the documents dated 30th January 2023 and handwritten minutes of 5th May 2023, along with any other relevant information. To ensure full clarity on the grievance, I further recommend that the HR Officer meets with the worker and his union official.
Dated: 06/05/25
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Seamus Clinton
Key Words:
Grievance procedure |