Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

General Operative

A Poultry Business

Representatives

Maria Geraghty SIPTU

Nicola Murphy and Annalee Brazelle, Peninsula Business Services Ireland

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 - 00003322

23/10/2024

This dispute concerns the grievance process that was adopted by the Employer following the Worker raising a workplace grievance.

The Worker commenced her employment with the Employer as a general operative in the Employer’s poultry business in March 2019.

An interpersonal dispute developed between the Worker and a colleague arising out of untrue health and safety allegations being made to management by this colleague against the Worker. The allegation was subsequently withdrawn but the Worker considered that she was defamed by the allegation being made. She believed that the colleague should have been disciplined for making this false accusation.

The Worker then raised a grievance with HR based on her colleague alleging untrue allegations about her.

The Employer initially failed to deal with the Worker’s grievance at all and when it did, it failed to deal with it in accordance with its own grievance processes.

The Employer mislaid the Worker’s first grievance made in June 2022 and when she reissued a new grievance in July 2022 no outcome issued.

She remains very unhappy with how the grievance was processed by the Employer in terms of the time that it took, the failure to issue an outcome and even though the allegation was withdrawn, her colleague was not disciplined or asked to apologise to her.  The Worker also believes that managers and HR representatives should also apologise for how they treated her during this time.  

Due to this adverse treatment, the Worker left work and went on sick leave in April 2022. She remains on sick leave without pay.  She has suffered significant loss of earnings and medical expenses from April 2022 until the present (April 2025) arising from workplace stress because of how she was treated.   While she wants to return to work, she does not wish to have to engage with the managers some of whom she raised a grievance, who remain working there. She seeks accountability.

She seeks a recommendation from the WRC as follows:

A recommendation that she receives compensation of €75, 000.00 for the loss of earnings and medical expenses she has suffered from April 2022 to date and to remedy how she was unfairly treated by managers and how they failed to apply their own grievance process.  

An assurance from her Employer that she will feel safe and supported when she returns to work and that she will not have to deal with managers who treated her unfairly and who remain employed. She requests a recommendation that these managers be disciplined for how they treated her.

An apology from management for failing to discipline her colleague for making false accusations against her, for how these managers treated her at meetings and for the lack of adherence to the Employer’s own grievance process.

The Employer’s response to the dispute is as follows:

The Employer accepts that the following flaws occurred in the grievance process that was initiated by the Worker in 2022:

1.       That the Employer’s grievance process was not adhered to by them. These failures include:  that her first grievance in June 2022 was mislaid by the Employer; that in response to her second grievance,  the grievance process was not progressed until 2023 when the Employer suggested that the dispute be dealt with by way of  a WRC mediation.  That when the mediation failed to yield a solution, there was no pickup of the grievance process and no outcome to the grievances were ever issued.

2.       In respect of the remedies sought by the Worker the Employer wishes to make an open apology to the Worker and accepts that an award of compensation should accompany this apology.

3.       However the WRC does not have the jurisdiction to make any substantive findings about whether or not the Worker’s colleague fabricated allegations against the Worker or whether or not a manager made pre-judgmental comments to the Worker before she was given a chance to speak and before any grievance hearing took place. The Employer submitted that the WRC jurisdiction is limited to assessing whether the Employer adhered to its agreed grievance procedures,  which it admits did occur.

4.       The Employer makes an open offer to the Worker of €10,000.00 to reflect the fact that the manner that the Worker’s grievance was investigated was delayed and that the Employer did not adhere to its own grievance process.

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

Observation

I note that there is admitted procedural wrongdoing on the part of the Employer.  I am concerned however that the Complainant has an unrealistic sense of what remedy may be awarded in Industrial Relations disputes. The Industrial Relations Acts do not allow the WRC to make substantive findings in terms of wrongdoing. The findings of wrongdoing only relates to whether agreed processes to deal with allegations of wrong doing have been complied with and complied with in accordance with fair procedures.

At the first Adjudication hearing day I explained that making substantive rulings such as those sought by the Worker are not within the jurisdiction of the WRC when it exercises its jurisdiction under the IR Acts. I also suggested that the Worker consider the levels of compensation awards that are typical in such disputes as are published on the WRC website. That suggestion was not taken up between the first and second hearing dates. On the second hearing day the Worker persisted in an inaccurate belief that the WRC had the jurisdiction to make substantive findings of wrongdoing and award three years of lost earnings. She also incorrectly believed that the WRC had the power to recommend that specific managers be disciplined, or an apology be issued, although I note that with regard to the apology sought that the Employer issued an open apology at the hearing for how her grievance was dealt with.   

Finding

I am satisfied that there was a failure by the Employer to adhere to its own grievance process. I find that this included losing the Worker’s first grievance request (June 2022) and failing to bring her second grievance request (July 2022) to any conclusion.  I find that the Employer did not adhere to its own grievance process which compels it to investigate and issue an outcome. In that respect I am satisfied that the dispute is well founded.

I acknowledge that the Employer has issued an open apology to the Worker in respect of these failures, which I record in this recommendation.

I consider that in respect of the above failures, which are accepted, that the appropriate and proportionate compensation is a lump sum payment of €10,000.00 and I recommend that this amount be paid to the Worker.

Before I conclude this investigation it is worth stating that if a worker raises a health and safety complaint against another and is penalised (by being disciplined) by the Employer for doing so, even if the health and safety complaint transpires to be baseless, this could expose the Employer to a complaint being brought under the penalisation provisions of the Safety Health and Welfare at Work Acts 2005. It was inappropriate that the Worker sought – as part of her grievance that her co-worker be penalised for making a complaint against her.

Failure to follow grievance procedure.