Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A former employee

A Hospital

Representatives

Barnaba Dorda SIPTU

Adrian Norton IBEC

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 - 00002455

03/04/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00002456

03/04/2024

The worker commenced her employment with the employer  in 2005 as a catering assistant and remained in that department for nearly 17 years.

The worker raised formal grievances in June and October 2022 regarding allegations of  mistreatment by a colleague.    The employer failed to investigate the grievances, citing that the parties no longer worked together.

The worker transferred to an Administrative role in Oncology in April 2022 and her new salary was €9,000 less than previous role.  It is submitted that the worker objected to the lower salary  and refused to sign the new contract, but  the issue remained unresolved until she resigned.  

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00002455

03/04/2024

The workers case centres on the alleged failure by the employer to properly Investigate grievances lodged by the worker while employed by them.   It is submitted that this matter stems from an incident between the worker and a colleague in February 2022 wherein the worker alleged that she was subjected to mistreatment by a colleague, Ms C.

The worker submits that  she made several attempts to resolve the matter informally, initially with the assistance of her immediate supervisors and later with HR personnel, but without success.

The worker transferred to a different department in April 2022 but continued to pursue her grievance but was unsuccessful in this regard and was told that the matter was closed as the parties no longer worked together.

The worker submits that she then submitted a formal grievance on 10 June 2022, and again on 26 October 2022.     The worker was advised on both occasions, that the Employer had decided  not to investigate her complaints. It is submitted that this failure amounts to a breach of her contractual rights, as she was denied a proper and fair investigation of her grievance.

The employer submits that  an altercation occurred between the worker and another employee, Ms. C, on 23/24 February 2022 within the catering department.   The catering manager convened a meeting with both parties to resolve the issue but noted highly inappropriate interactions between both employees and requested HR involvement.

It is submitted that the HR Manager (Ms. R) held informal meetings with both employees  and recommended informal mediation.   Both parties initially agreed to mediation; however, the worker later declined, citing union and legal advice.

The Worker resigned from the catering Department in April 2022 and moved to an administrative role within the same organization.   The Employer consulted with the workers union in relation to the grievance and it was agreed not to proceed with a formal investigation as it could result in disciplinary action for both the worker and the other employee following interactions at the meeting of 24 February.

The  worker submitted a written complaint in June 2022 after moving Department. The Manager again explained that formal escalation could lead to sanctions for both workers. The workers union representative at the time agreed that the best course of action would be to close the matter.    The Worker submitted a grievance in August 2022, and the employer responded that a formal investigation was not appropriate.

The Worker submitted another grievance in October 2022 with new allegations to which the employer reiterated its previous decision and offered informal resolution.  Following this follow-up correspondence; no response was received from the worker, and the employer confirmed the agreement with her Trade Union to close the matter informally.  The Worker resigned from the employment entirely in February 2023 having secured a new job outside of the organisation.

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

The worker advised the hearing that her employment with the employer ended on 24th February 2023. The claims before the WRC were submitted on 3rd April 2024. The worker advised the hearing that she had submitted earlier complaints and grievances to the employer themselves and also toher union, but the matters had not been investigated.

 The worker referred to an  incident which had taken place on 23rd of February 2022 wherein the she was subjected to mistreatment by a colleague, Ms C who had verbally abused her in front of others.   The worker advised the hearing that she had submitted a complaint about the incident, and a meeting was held the next day with both parties and the catering manager.

The worker told the hearing that HR had then become involved in the matter and she stated that she had attended several meetings in this regard but that the employer had ultimately decided not to formally investigate her grievance and closed the matter. 

The worker stated that she had been offered a transfer to another Department and that she had been successful at interview for the role and so had moved from catering to an Administrative role in April 2022 while still employed by the same employer.

The worker stated that the employer advised her that the matter she had complained of was closed and there was a decision not to investigate it any further as she no longer worked with the other employee.

The worker advised the hearing that even after leaving the catering Department she made several efforts to have the matter investigated by the employer but was unsuccessful in this regard.

The worker stated that she then submitted a formal grievance on 10 June 2022, and again on 26 October 2022 but  was advised on both occasions, that the Employer had decided  not to investigate her complaints.    The employer at the hearing stated that it had made consistent efforts to resolve the matter informally to avoid the possibility of disciplinary sanctions against both workers. 

The employer stated that following the meeting with the catering manager on 24th of February the catering manager had advised that there were inappropriate interactions between both employees and that both were potentially in breach of the code of conduct. 

The employer advised the hearing that it had discussions with the workers Trade union representative at the time and advised the representative that a formal investigation could lead to a disciplinary sanction for the worker and the other employee who was also a member of the same union.

The employer position is that it was agreed with the workers union that a formal investigation was not in the best interest of either employee.   The employer submits that neither the Worker nor the union sought any  further progression of the matter. 

The union representative who was present at the hearing had not been involved in the matter at the time or in the discussions referred to by the employer but stated that he had seen no documentary evidence of any such agreement.   The employer stated that the union was copied on all communications between the parties but agreed there was no formal record of the agreement as the decision was made not to proceed formally with the matter but to try and resolve the matter informally.  The employer referred to the union representative involved at the time and stated that he had agreed to go away and talk to his members regarding the potential consequences and agreed  that the parties would not be best served by proceeding with a formal investigation.

The employer at the hearing  made the point that the worker and her Trade union chose not to progress matters whist she remained in the employer’s employment during which time she could still have been subjected to disciplinary action.

The Employer at the hearing also pointed to  a possible misalignment of positions between the worker and her Trade Union regarding  follow-up on her grievances however states that it agreed the course of action with her union representative.   The employer advised the hearing that various different her union representatives had represented the worker during the lifetime of these matters and did not include the representative who was present at the hearing.

I note the employers position that the worker no longer worked in the area with the accused colleague and that it had agreed a course of action with the workers representative on the understanding that it was better not to move to a formal investigation as it could result in a disciplinary sanction for both parties.

However, while I note this position I also note that the worker herself did seek to have the matter formally investigated a number of times and the only response she received was that it had been agreed not to investigate.   The worker was also advised that this would avoid her being sanctioned for her part in the matter.    The worker at the hearing made the point that no official complaint was ever raised against her in relation to the matter and so she was not given an opportunity to defend herself against whatever allegations were being alluded to in reaching the agreement not to proceed with the investigation .

The employer repeatedly stated that the course of action was agreed with the worker’s representative, but it is clear that the worker wanted to pursue the matter further and made that known to the employer.

Having considered all of the circumstances of this matter and taking into account both positions I note that the outcome was that the worker was left in a position where she had repeatedly asked for an investigation and that this did not happen.  While I note that there were short comings on both sides in terms of failure  to follow up in a timely manner as well as a failure to accurately  record or communicate what was agreed and the reasons for same I am satisfied that the worker was not afforded the investigation she had requested and that the employer is at least partly responsible for this.    Accordingly,  I  recommend in favour of the worker and recommend that the employer pay the worker €1,500 in compensation in this regard.

I  recommend in favour of the worker and recommend that the employer pay the worker €1,500 in compensation in this regard.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00002456

03/04/2024

The workers case centres on the alleged failure by the employer to maintain the worker’s salary level following a Department transfer.

The worker submits that she had worked in the catering department for seventeen years. During that time, she was occasionally offered training opportunities with a view to transferring to other departments, but she had consistently declined these offers as she was happy in the catering department until an incident which occurred between the worker and a colleague Ms. C in February 2022.

 In April 2022, following ongoing issues with a colleague Ms. C, the worker accepted a transfer to a different department in order to remove herself from that work environment.  The worker moved to a new role in Administration but was surprised to  discover that her new salary was approximately €9,000 less per year than in her previous role in the catering department.

The worker submits that despite raising this issue locally, the matter remained unresolved. She submits that It was only after she decided to leave her employment that the Employer verbally agreed to pay her the same salary to persuade her to stay, this was later denied by the employer.

The employer advised the hearing that the worker had raised issues in respect of an incident involving a colleague in the Catering Department in February 2022.  The employer submits that it was agreed that the matter would be resolved informally rather than pursuing a formal investigation. 

During the informal process the worker applied for a role in a different Department.  The worker was interviewed and was successful at interview and so was offered the role in Administration which she accepted.  

The employer submits that the salary level for this new role was lower and that the worker was notified of this from the start and that it was clear from her new contract.  

The employer denies that the worker was offered an increase in salary to persuade her to stay in the role instead of moving to a new job and resigning her employment with them.

In considering this matter I have taken into account all of the relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

I note the workers position that she had assumed she would retain the same salary when she transferred to the new role .  However, I also note that it was not strictly a transfer and that the worker had in fact interviewed for a different role in a different Department at which she was successful.    I note also that the worker resigned from her role in the catering Department to take up the role in Administration.   The employer advised the hearing that the new role was an entry level position as Administrative Assistant and that it did carry a lower salary than the role the worker had occupied in catering but the employer emphasised that it was an entry level position, and the worker had no previous experience in administration.  The employer advised the hearing that the administrative role was a role in which the worker gained valuable experience which enabled her to gain enough experience in a short timeframe to quickly secure a new job at a higher salary with a different employer.

The employer advised the hearing that the worker in applying for the Admin role had accepted the lower salary which was outlined in the contract.  The worker at the hearing disputes that she accepted the lower salary stating that she did not sign the contract, but she acknowledged that she was notified of the salary level and chose to proceed with accepting the new role as she wanted to move away from the catering  Department.  The worker also stated that she had taken up the role in the hopes that  the salary issue could be resolved and that she would be restored to her previous salary level.

The employer advised the hearing the worker raised no formal issue or grievance in respect of the new salary level.   The worker at the hearing did not deny this and could not point to any formal raising of the salary issue with the employer.

Having considered all of the circumstances of this matter and taking into account both positions I note that the worker interviewed for and was successful in her application for a new role in a different Department.  I note that in accepting this role the worker also resigned from her role in the catering Department.

I am satisfied that the worker was aware of the lower salary and that the salary level was set out in her contract which she says she did not sign as she was not happy with the salary but I also note that she did not raise this matter as a formal grievance.

Accordingly,  I  do not recommend in favour of the worker in respect of this matter.

I  do not recommend in favour of the worker in respect of this matter.