Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Staff Officer

Educational Institution

Representatives

Self- represented.

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 - 00003919

06/03/2025

The worker has referred a dispute to the WRC concerning the failure of the employer to apply the  provisions of the workplace grievance procedure and to, furthermore, deny her the option of activating  a new grievance concerning defects in the previous conduct of the procedure.

The worker has been employed as a staff officer with the employer since 1/9/2005.

She is seeking financial compensation for the employer’s infringements of the procedures.

She referred the dispute to the WRC on 6/3/2025.

The worker has referred the management’s response to her grievances to the WRC  in accordance with stage 4 of their Grievance Procedure.

The worker submitted her original  grievance  (1)to the employer on 17/10/2022 concerning the failure of the relevant manager, Manager A, to respond to her earlier complaint about a colleague’s behaviour submitted to said manager. This was acknowledged on 10/11/2022.

The worker submitted a second grievance (2) to the employer concerning the handling of a  complaint by Manager B about the behaviour of Colleague C towards the worker.

The worker submitted a third grievance(3)  in November 2024 about the institution’s response to her complaints.

The handling of these complaints have not been resolved to her satisfaction at the stage 3 meeting held on 13/1/2025, particularly Manager B’s handling of the process

Grievance 1.

This was not resolved at a stage 3 meeting on 13/1/2025. The issues considered at that meeting were about how Manager A had failed to deliver an outcome as required at stage 2, and the subsequent failure of Manager B to deal with the worker’s substantive complaint concerning the failure of a Manager A to respond to the worker’s complaint about a colleague.

 The employer had acknowledged that the grievance procedure was faultily managed and apologised for the delay but declined to offer her compensation.

Grievance 2.

This concerned a complaint she had lodged via the Grievance Procedure on  17/10/2022. The employer however funnelled that complaint through the Dignity at Work Policy . This resulted in a serious delay as that process did not contain  timelines in contrast to the Grievance Procedure. The delay  occasioned by the identification of the Dignity at Work Policy as the appropriate ‘lane’ prevented her complaint  from being disposed of before she went on maternity leave in March 2023. She asserted that the institution had no authority to designate that process as the correct one for her complaint. How the employer handled the situation has had a big,negative impact on her mental health and impacted upon her time with her newborn baby.

She has lost out financially by being out of work on workplace stress related illness.

The worker submitted a further, new  complaint on 25/10/24, concerning the refusal of the employer to permit her to open up a complaint about the institution -wide response to her complaints about the earlier handling of her complaints. She objected to but did engage with the stage 3 meeting on 13/1/2025, it being the  forum provided  by the employer to deal with all outstanding issues.

She is seeking compensation.

The employer asserts that there’s no basis to the worker’s statement that they failed to offer the worker an opportunity to have her complaints heard.

They gave the worker a chance to deal with her grievance about the Manager B’s handling of her complaint at the stage 3 meeting on 13/1/2025. Initially she declined this offer saying that the  grievance had been closed off at mediation but ultimately did engage with the stage 3 process.

Grievance 1.

The substantive complaint against Manager A  was settled at the WRC.

The employer expressed regret / apologised  for the delays, the non- compliance with meeting timelines, the failure to release  documentation  relating to stage 2, and to comply with the procedure. They have now committed to training relevant staff about  how to conduct the Grievance Process.

The employer cannot accept the claim for compensation.

Grievance 2 .

The worker accepted the DAW process.

The employer stated that if a complaint involves bullying and that is how the worker characterised colleague C’s behaviour, the Grievance Procedure provides that the appropriate process  is the Dignity at Work Procedure. That is why that process was chosen.

This complaint against Colleague C was withdrawn in November 2023 .

I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

The worker referred this dispute in  accordance with the provisions of the workplace grievance procedure which provides for a referral of a dispute to the WRC when the parties fail, as in the instant case, to reach an agreement at Stage 3 of the procedure.

The worker submits that she has been denied access to the grievance procedure  to have her complaints examined, and /or that the procedures have been misapplied.

The origin of this dispute concerned the handling of two  separate complaints which the complainant referred under the grievance procedure.

Grievance 1.

The first complaint, originally lodged on 17/10/2022,  concerned the failure of relevant managers to follow the timelines set out in the procedure, and the 5-month delay in delivering  an outcome to stage 2 of the Grievance Procedure. The worker withdrew that complaint on 1/11/2023 as the person responsible for these actions had retired.

Grievance2.

The second complaint, concerning  the behaviour of a colleague towards her, was  originally lodged via the grievance procedure on 17/10/2022, but evolved into a DAW complaint on 13/12/2022. The worker withdrew this complaint on 24/7/2024. The employer accepted the request to withdraw. The worker’s complaint and  considered at the stage 3 hearing on 13/1/2025 was not concerned with the substantive complaint,  but with the employer’s redirection of that complaint into the DAW procedure as it prolonged the process. The Dignity at Work procedure did not have timelines unlike the Grievance Procedure.

But more  importantly, I find that it gave her an avenue to have her complaint heard.

The complainant has not explained how the stage 3 exercise, conducted on 13/1/2025, prevented her from raising any issues, or what she has been deprived of. She has engaged in procedural points.

The outcome of the stage 3 procedure acknowledged that timelines had not been met which in the worker’s view merits compensation.

I find nothing improper about this designation of the DAW as the appropriate process for the complaint of a colleague’s behaviour towards her as opposed to allowing it to travel through the Grievance Procedure. I find that her  original characterisation of the behaviour of the subject of the complaint, where she did not wish him to enter her room,  indicated that it was more appropriate to the Dignity at Work Procedure.  She explained that the  Grievance Procedure would have enabled her to dispose of the issue more quickly. This interfered with her time with her new baby

It is regrettable that this procedure lacks the equivalent timelines found in the Grievance Procedure.

As she engaged in the stage 3 meeting on 13/1/2025 to deal with all outstanding matters, I do not find any merit in upholding  her claim that there should have been a third grievance procedure opened up to examine the institution-  wide response to her claims. These processes are a means to an end – they don’t exist separate from the substantive complaints. Otherwise, it is an empty exercise at finger pointing offering no remedy on the substantive matters. The stage 3 did draw conclusions, some of which have been deemed unacceptable by the worker and referred on to the WRC.

The complaint entered a third grievance, this time against the  institution, and not individuals, in  October 2024, for their failure to provide her with a specific  avenue- a stand-alone grievance process, unconnected to the previous, earlier substantive complaints ,which had been withdrawn or settled -to have her complaints concerning the procedural flaws heard. This request was rejected, and she was advised that she would have to re- open a stage 3 complaint.

I am satisfied that the worker was given an opportunity at stage 3 on the 13/1/2025 to highlight her concerns. She has certainly been denied the use of the Grievance Procedure in the format proposed by her, but that is a different matter to denying her the opportunity to put her concerns about the procedural defects and the actions of Managers in how her complaints were handled. What is the difference and what is lost by the employee in following the stage 3 hearing  as opposed to activating the new grievance. What does she wish to achieve in a standalone process that cannot be achieved in a stage 3 hearing? She does not factor into her reckoning that the employer  might have come up with the same conclusions in a separate , new stand-alone process.

The very extensive submissions of the complainant indicate that she has misunderstood the nature of a dispute under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.  It is solution focussed rather than inquisitorial, and ‘indictment’ driven.

However, I do find that the worker has legitimate concerns about the length of time which it took the employer to respond and  the failure of the employer to advise her of the stage 2 outcome. The stage 1 meeting of the grievance submitted against Manager A occurred 9 weeks after its lodgement, as opposed to the 10 working days’ time frame in the procedure. The outcome was delivered to her 12 February 2023, in contravention of the procedure.  The stage 2 meeting took place on 3/3/2023, and not within the 10 days prescribed by the procedure. The complainant did not hear a result of this meeting until 28/8/2023, though she had been on maternity leave during that period. Again, there is nothing improper in the employer’s non- engagement with the employee while on protected leave.

What is inescapable is that the indifference and  carelessness of the employer damaged her trust in the employer’s commitment to a speedy resolution to disputes.

I recommend that the employer review the Grievance Procedure and  the Dignity At Work Procedure so that there are clear timeliness within which each stage should be activated, completed ,escalated  and responses delivered.

I recommend that the employer pay the worker the sum of €2000 in full and final settlement of this dispute.

Non- compliance with grievance procedures.