ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00004178
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Public Service Clerical Worker | A Public Service Employer |
Representatives | Lynn Coffey ,Fórsa | A Public Service Employer |
Dispute(s):
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 - 00004178 | 23/04/2025 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Dónal Moore
Date of Hearing: 29/08/2025
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 has been employed at various of the Employer locations since 2000 and has been promoted several times. The Worker raised a grievance under the agreed procedures on the 2nd of February 2024, and this was escalated to stage 2 where a meeting was held on the 14th of June 2024. As of the complaint being lodged and heard with the WRC there has no determination of stage 2, and several requests had been made to see the matter finalised. This is now 15 months outstanding. This complaint to the WRC is not on the merits of the complaint but on the lack of adherence to the agreed policy leading to a lack of faith on the part of the Complainant. |
Summary of Workers Case:
Having experienced difficulties in an office of the Employer the Worker submitted a complaint under the agreed procedure. It is a contention of the Worker that after 15 months the Employer is not committed to resolving this matter which has caused them a great deal of stress and forced her to take sick leave. The Worker no longer has any faith in the ability of the employer to resolve the matter and no ability in the goodwill of local management to fulfil their duties under the agreed process leading to greater distress to her. The incident complained of is not the subject of this recommendation but for background it is useful to note that they involved difficulties with her line manager and caused her a great deal of stress and illness forcing her to avail of the sick leave policy. This was exacerbated by being ignored by the organisation and their failing to deal with the matter appropriately or in good time in line with the policy. This led to the Worker moving their employment to a different office of the Employer. It is the Worker’s case that management had a duty to her to deal with the matter in a timely manner which they failed to do, and this has had a significant effect on her personal and work lives; and it is a denial of her right to natural justice. The redress sought by the Worker is the following: 1. A decision to be issued to the stage 2 grievance lodged June 2024. 2. An apology for the inordinate delays, ignored correspondence and failure to comply with the policy 3. An acknowledgement of work-related stress which caused sick leave for the period 18th October until 25th November that this be reflected in the Worker sick leave record and amended to omit this period of sick leave. 4. Compensation payment from the employer as recognition of its failures to honour its own policy. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The facts in this case are not disputed by the Employer that the matter has been going on for an inordinate amount of time contrary to the agreed policy. Whilst it was no reflection on the Employer Representative, they apologised for the delay on behalf of the organisation and admitted it had been delayed inexcusably with no immediate resolution in sight. Whilst there appears to be a great deal of issues on the part of local management I distinguish this from the professionalism of the Employer Representative. In their submission to the Commission the Employer acknowledges the complaint and apologised for the delay. In setting out the terms of an offer of compensation the Employer acknowledged that this was not likely to resolve the matter. The Employer also wished to state that they would have significant difficulty in meeting the demand of the Worker in terms of resolving the sick leave record for the that discharged. This is set out as a policy matter and would have to be robustly challenged in this and further fora. The Employer also set out in the submission that they hoped to be in a position regarding the two grievance decisions to be issued soon. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
Clearly there is an inordinate delay that is not denied by the Employer and the matter is not on the merits of the original grievances but to mark the delay in coming to a conclusion. I further note that the delay experienced by the Worker should never have happened and is inexcusable and unfathomable. Further to this, it is impossible to comprehend how the investigations required could be fairly concluded at this late stage without further challenge from the other parties; resulting from the delay. Whilst not impossible, it is unrealistic to think that such investigation and determination from the Employer at this stage will satisfy the needs of the Worker and will likely lead to further hearings and challenges on the rights of other individuals. In recommending a path to resolution and closure for the parties I think it highly appropriate I recommend that the Employer provide and written apology to the Worker for the delay and distress caused. I do not believe it will be helpful to either party to recommend that the sick leave record be altered to reflect the sick leave taken due the exacerbated stress caused by the Respondent agents, but I do believe compensation for the lost sick leave that may have a future bearing on the earnings of the Worker be addressed in the form of monetary compensation. Of importance to the whole matter, I do not see how the Employer can properly address matters at such an advanced stage without reviving the matter and creating further distress to the Worker and entangling the parties in a protracted investigation that will already have been entirely frustrated, following the inordinate delay. To that end the Worker should accept that matter as closed based on further compensation, in addition to the compensation for lost sick leave because of the Employer inaction. I see these matters as conjoined, and to accept the compensation is to accept that the matter is closed in its entirety and allow the parties to move forward. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
For the reasons set out above I recommend to both parties that in full and final settlement of the dispute they accept the following:
- Provide and written apology to the Worker for the delay and distress caused.
- In terms of the sick leave taken, I do not recommend that the sick leave record be amended, as to do so will create further difficulties in resolving the entire dispute, but I do recommend that the Worker be compensated for this to the effect of 6 weeks basic pay payable within 4 weeks of written confirmation from the worker that all the recommendations are accepted.
- In compensation of the failure of to honour the agreed policy I am recommending a further 14 weeks salary in compensation to the Worker. For the sake of clarity, this 14 weeks’ basic pay is in addition to the 6 weeks at point 2. This is to be paid within 4 weeks of written confirmation from the worker that all the recommendations are accepted.
- I recommend the above in conjunction with, and dependent upon, a further recommendation to the Worker in the case, that they should accept this payment of a total of 20 weeks’ pay on a clear understanding that the matter is now closed and the payment set out is in full and final settlement of all matters.
This will mean the Employer is not required to further the original complaints, unless the Employer wishes to do so.
The Worker should indicate to the Employer that this is acceptable to them in advance of the Employer implementing the Recommendation. The Worker having done so, the Employer should pay the 20 weeks basic salary within four working weeks.
Dated: 16/09/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Dónal Moore
Key Words:
Inordinate delay, compensation for lost sick leave entitlement |