ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00003493
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Worker | A University |
Representatives | SIPTU | University Representative |
Dispute:
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 - 00003493 | 02/12/2024 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Date of Hearing: 16/02/2026
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. Hearings were heard remotely, pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. Where submissions from parties were received they were exchanged.
Background:
The worker submits that she had not been afforded stage 3 of the employer’s grievance procedure.
|
Summary of Workers Case:
The worker submitted her unhappiness with the failures of the employer to uphold her request for job resizing within her specific role and that she raised a grievance at Stage 1 on 07/12/2023. The worker was unhappy with the decision and appealed the decision to Stage 2 and her grievance was not upheld. She requested an appeal to Stage 3 on 01/03/2024 and to date her Stage 3 grievance has not been heard despite procedures setting out this should “normally be heldwithin 10 working days”. The worker submitted that it was unacceptable that such delays should have arisen and that justice delayed is justice denied. It was further outlined that based on the behaviours of the employer the worker had lost confidence with the processing of her grievance at stage 3 by the employer.
Case law cited included Adj 00039602 Nurse and Medical Provider, Adj 00002029 Health Care Assistant and Health Service Provider, IR-SC-00000295 A Porter and a Health Service Provider. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The employer submitted that the worker’s grievance regarding job resizing is outside the remit of the grievance procedure as job resizing is a management-led process and is not worker specific. It was furthermore outlined that it has been difficult to source appropriate people to hear the Stage 3 stage grievance and that this had been communicated to the worker.
|
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
It would appear that there was a conflict between the parties regarding the actual dispute in front of me. I note the worker’s position that at all times the dispute submitted to the WRC on 02/12/2024 was the matter regarding the failures of the employer to hear Stage 3 of the worker’s grievance. It was not in dispute that the employer has not proceeded with the worker’s Stage 3 grievance which they submit is inter alia owing to an inability to source suitable persons to hear the dispute.
I note that the grievance procedure does not appear to preclude the worker from utilising the grievance procedure with regard to the matter of job resizing although it would appear that since job resizing is a management-led process related to organisation design and does not appear to be related to any specific individual; the grievance procedure might not be the most suitable tool available to worker for clarity on her dispute.
A key element of good worker/employer relationships is ensuring that workers have access to a robust grievance procedure where appropriate, unless a matter of dispute is specifically precluded from the grievance procedures . It is apparent that the employer has failed to provide the worker with access to all stages of the grievance procedure as is provided for. I further note that the worker appears to have lost confidence in the employer fully engaging in the grievance process regarding her dispute in an impartial manner.
Taking into consideration all the submissions, I recommend as follows:
The employer should engage with the worker to explore how her grievance may best be processed. The employer should pay the worker compensation of €850 for failing to proceed with her grievance within the timelines provided for within the employer’s policy without a reasonable explanation. The employer and trade union should continue to work together to identify how disputes might best be dealt with, when unsuitable for the formal grievance procedure.
|
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
Taking into consideration all the submissions, I recommend as follows:
The employer should engage with the worker to explore how her grievance may best be processed. The employer should pay the worker compensation of €850 for failing to proceed with her grievance within the timelines provided for within the employer’s policy without a reasonable explanation. The employer and trade union should continue to work together to identify how disputes might best be dealt with, when unsuitable for the formal grievance procedure.
|
Dated: 24th February 2026.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Key Words:
Dispute, time lines, industrial relations act |