Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A County Council

Representatives

Self-Represented

LGMA

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 - 00003384

07/11/2024

The Worker raised a grievance in February 2024.  The Worker states that his grievance was not resolved, and that management breached the Grievance Procedure.  This is disputed by the Employer who states that the grievance was fully and fairly investigated in accordance with the Grievance Procedure.

The Worker has been employed by the Employer since 2002.  He moved to the relevant section in 2012.  The Worker went on sick leave on 6th February 2024 and the following day he submitted a written grievance.  It is the Worker’s position that the investigation into his grievance was: (a) unreasonably delayed; (b) elements of his grievance were not examined; and (c) the outcome was pre-determined.  He disagrees with the investigation and appeal findings.  The Worker outlined in detail to the hearing the reasons why he believes the process was flawed and unfair. 

The Worker submits that he was put in a position by the Employer where he had to remove himself from the workplace by using his sick leave entitlement.  As a result, he exhausted the full-pay sick leave provision and some of the half-pay sick leave provision.  He suffered and continues to suffer financial detriment as a result.  The Worker has resumed work in another department and is on full pay.  However, when he takes sick leave to attend a medical appointment he receives half-pay for that time.  The Worker submits that he should have been placed on paid administrative leave and should not have had to use up his sick leave entitlement. 

The Worker seeks compensation by way of reimbursement of salary for the time spent on half-pay and a further €20,000 for the stress and ill-health he suffered because of the failure of management to process his grievance correctly. 

The Worker’s grievance was initially referred to another section in line with an Employer/Union Agreement.  This resulted in a five-week delay.  That section referred the grievance back to the section in which the Worker was actively employed at the time.  A further five-week delay ensued.  This was due to the time taken to appoint a senior director to investigate the grievance.  The grievance was fully and fairly investigated.  The Worker was represented by a trade union representative throughout the process.  Three of the four elements of the grievance were not upheld.  The Worker appealed the findings of the investigation.  The appeals manager upheld the findings of the investigation.  The Worker was paid in accordance with the applicable sick pay scheme.  There is no provision for any other form of paid leave in these circumstances and paid administrative leave is confined to very specific circumstances. 

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

I am satisfied the underlying issue for the Worker was his concern that he would be required to undertake a particular task.  It prompted a stress reaction in the Worker which led him to taking sick leave before presenting a grievance.  While the investigation and the appeals process were not perfect (particularly the delay in commencing and concluding the investigation), I am satisfied the Worker’s concerns were investigated, and that he had the opportunity to appeal the findings of the investigation.  I note the Worker was represented by his trade union representative throughout the process.  I do not agree that the outcome was pre-determined or that the findings of the investigation were irrational. 

The Worker was very aggrieved that he had to ‘use up his sick pay entitlement’.  I note the Worker went on sick leave before he presented his grievance, and that the Worker was thereafter continuously certified by his doctor as unfit for work.  He was paid in accordance with the sick pay scheme.  I accept the Employer’s submission that the Worker had no entitlement to paid administrative leave.  When the Worker complained that he was going to be placed on half-pay, he was advised of Critical Illness Pay and was successful in being accepted onto same which allowed him to avail of full-pay for a further period. 

The present position is that the Worker has been moved to another section and has resumed work.  He will not be required to perform the particular task that he had a difficulty with.  As he has exhausted the full-pay provision of the sick pay scheme, his wages are reduced to half-pay when he avails of leave for medical appointments.  This is in line with the sick pay scheme.   

The Worker had a concern regarding the nature of deductions from his wages between the period of the 28th August 2024 and the 31st December 2024.  The Employer agreed at the hearing to set out in writing for the Worker the nature of these deductions.  This was welcomed by the Worker at the hearing.

I recommend the Employer details in writing the nature of any deductions from the Worker’s wages between the period of the 28th August 2024 and the 31st December 2024.  This must be provided to the Worker within two weeks of this Recommendation being issued to the parties. 

I am satisfied, in the round, that the Employer acted in accordance with the Grievance Procedure and the applicable sick pay scheme.  I do not recommend the payment of compensation by the Employer to the Worker.

Grievance. Sick Leave. Compensation.