Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A General Manager

A Statutory Body

Representatives

Niamh McGovern BL instructed by Comyn Kelleher Tobin Solicitors

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 - 00001512

05/07/2023

It was the Worker dispute that having exhausted the internal grievance procedure she sought adjudication on her industrial dispute with her Employer. 

Submissions were submitted and relied upon at the hearing by both parties. 

The Worker is a General Manager having been successful promoted since initially commencing her employment with the Employer since August 1980.

On 19 May 2022, the Worker formally raised a grievance concerning the Employer’s failure to apply consolidated salary scales correctly.

On 24 May 2022, the Worker received an email from the Head of Service attaching the permanent‑assignment letter. This decision was made without any consultation, discussion, or engagement with the Worker. Although the email referred to prior discussion, the Worker confirms that no such discussion had occurred. On the same day, the Worker initiated a formal Stage one grievance under the Grievance Procedure, citing four main grounds.

A Stage one grievance hearing took place on 1 June 2022, without any effort by the Employer to resolve the matter informally beforehand. The outcome issued on 8 June 2022 did not uphold the Worker’s grievances but included two recommendations, neither of which was implemented. During this stage, the Worker was informed by the Head of Service that she did not believe she had the authority to overturn decisions made by two Chief Officers.

On 1 July 2022, the Worker submitted a Stage two appeal of the grievance. The Stage two hearing occurred on 12 August 2022. Issues arose regarding the appropriateness of the decision‑maker, as the originally nominated Chief Officer declined to hear the appeal. Ultimately, a Chief Officer from another CHO area took responsibility for conducting the hearing.

The Stage two outcome was issued on 3 October 2022. It acknowledged that any change to a Worker’s role, or confirmation of such a change, requires full consultation with relevant parties. It recommended that the Employer engage in a collaborative process to address the issues raised and that a review be completed within a short timeframe, given the length of time the grievance had been active. However, the Worker reported that no engagement, process, or communication occurred following this outcome.

On 25 October 2022, the Worker received an unexpected email from Employee Relations outlining the Stage three grievance process. The communication also indicated that the process might differ between CHOs, which the Worker found inconsistent, given that the Grievance Procedure is a national policy and should not be applied differently across regions.

On 9 November 2022, in response to an email from the Worker concerning the next steps in the grievance process, the Chief Officer of CHO2 confirmed that final decisions regarding the allocation of duties to General Managers rested solely with the Head of Older People Services and the Worker’s Line Manager. On 1 December 2022, the Head of Service informed the Worker that she would be taking two years out of work and that her General Manager post would soon become vacant. The Worker expected to be eligible to apply but decided to delay progressing Stage three of the grievance for fear it could prejudice any competition for that vacancy.

On 27 February 2023, the Worker formally initiated stage three of the grievance process with the named Employee Relations Manager. The following day, 28 February 2023, this Employee Relations Manager recused themselves and referred the matter to the Assistant National Director for Employee Relations. On 30 March 2023, the Worker wrote to both Employee Relations and the AND noting that no further correspondence had been received regarding the Stage three grievance.

On 2 May 2023, the Worker again wrote expressing concern that the Workplace Relations Commission would expect internal procedures to be exhausted before a referral and asking whether the Employer intended to waive their right to Stage three, given the absence of progress.

On 15 May 2023, the Worker received an invitation for a stage three hearing from a different Employee Relations Manager from another area. The stage three hearing took place on 1 June 2023.

On 23 June 2023, the Worker received the stage three outcome, which did not uphold the grievance. The findings asserted that there had been consultation between the Head of Service and the Chief Officer before structural changes were made. The Worker disputes this, noting that there had been no such consultation regarding the changes affecting their role. The outcome also stated that a decision had been made to allocate the Worker to another General Manager post. The Worker contends this is factually incorrect, as the General Manager post for Home Support did not exist at that point.

During the hearing, the Employee Relations Manager queried how a Grade VIII officer could ask a Chief Officer to resolve a grievance, a comment the Worker found concerning as it suggested an expectation that senior staff could rely solely on managerial instruction rather than a fair and transparent process. The Worker maintains that the documentation and correspondence demonstrate there was no engagement, consultation, or meeting with the Worker prior to the Employer deciding to redesignate the role in May 2022. The Worker also notes that neither the stage one nor stage two recommendations were implemented by the Head of Service or Chief Officer, both senior managers within the Employer’s organisation.

On 5 July 2023, having exhausted the internal process without resolution, the Worker submitted the present complaint to the WRC. The Worker states that throughout the process they faced inconsistent information, procedural delays, changing explanations, and avoided responsibilities by senior management.

The Worker now seeks a formal public apology and compensation for the prolonged and unnecessary distress caused by the Employer’s actions, including the reneging on commitments made and the failure to implement grievance recommendations.

The Employer submitted that all matters arising prior to 24 January 2022 are outside the jurisdiction of the Workplace Relations Commission due to a binding agreement concluded on that date, which prevents the Worker from re‑opening issues relating to her earlier role or duties.

It was the submission of the Employer that the Worker has already raised the matters in question by way of Grievance internally, through Stage one, two and three.

The Employer further submitted that the 2022 decision to permanently assign a General Manager to Residential Services was an operational service need decision reviewed in May 2022, not personal to the Worker, and that any dissatisfaction she has regarding consultation reflects communication issues rather than grounds for compensation or a public apology.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. However, my investigation is limited to matters which occurred prior to 24 January 2022 where it is neither correct nor productive from an Industrial Relations perspective to look behind an agreement made between the parties.

The Employer’s Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (the “Procedures”) provides for a three stage process. This is nationally agreed procedure. This process was exhausted by the Worker.

The Procedures also set out specific timelines for grievances to be addressed at each stage of the process; stage one requires a meeting to be arranged to discuss the grievance with seven working days with a decision to issue within a further seven working days thereafter. Stage two and three also detail the same timeline.

The timelines were complied with in stage one with total delay of 13 weeks in hearing and providing an outcome decision in stage two. There were further delays from the date of submission, 27 February 2023 of the stage three appeal with the Worker forced to follow up on three separate occasions in order to progress the matter which was heard on 15 May 2023. 

The Worker also raised issues with the implementation of the recommendations. While the concerns regarding implementation of recommendations were addressed with under stage two and three, the Worker further complains that the recommendations contained in the stage three outcome. However, upon review of the Decision Report of 1 June 2023, the grievance was not upheld. While the Worker may not have been satisfied with the decision, the role of the Workplace Relations Commission is not to reinvestigate a grievance but to ensure that it was conducted in accordance with the Employer’s Procedures while also having regard for the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (SI 146 of 2000).

As regards the Employee Relations Manager hearing stage three, the Procedures provide that at stage three the grievance rests with the HR Department. While it is questionable why the Employee Relations Manager would be concerned with the position of the decision maker in the previous stage of the process, particularly where the Procedures explicitly provide for such a structure. However, a hearing was conducted and a written report with reasons was issued in compliance with the stage three procedure.

In all the circumstances of this case it is concluded that the Employer failed to deal with the Worker’s grievance with the promptness set out in its own nationally agreed procedures. This does not aid the parties in resolving the grievance in a productive manner.

Grievance - Delay