Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Employee

Employer

Representatives

Colm Porter Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation

Rhona Murphy Byrne Wallace

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 - 00004044

31/03/2025

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The worker submitted that she was not provided with a response to her grievances within the timeframe for investigation laid down in the Dignity at Work policy.  She stated that this had an impact upon her.  She also submitted that the outcomes of the various stages did not address the grounds of her grievance.

She sought reinstatement in her referral to the WRC. She also submitted that she has suffered both personal and professionally due significant workplace stress due to the alleged behaviour and the conduct & nonadherence of management and HR to follow their own procedures.

Shortly prior to the hearing in additional submissions, the worker who had resigned in the intervening period sought compensation for the loss of earnings she suffered, submitting that €35,000 would represent reasonable and equitable redress in the circumstances.

The employer submitted that although it did not achieve the timeframes laid down in its grievance policy, there was no undue delay in considering the workers complaints.  It was noted that there was a short timeframe laid down in the procedures but also noted that not all delays were attributable to the employer.

The employer submitted that no complaints were taken under its Dignity at Work policy.

The employer submitted that in her complaint form, the employee sought reinstatement, this had been granted.  The worker subsequently resigned from her employment.

The employer noted that the complaint taken to the WRC has changed over time.

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

The worker submitted that she lodged a grievance on either 12 or 14 August 2024 and received an outcome letter on 13 September 2024.  She submitted a second stage grievance on 27 September and received the outcome letter on 24 November 2024.  She escalated it to a Stage 3 grievance on 26 November and received the outcome of that grievance on 8 January 2025. 

Having regard to the time frames within which the outcomes were produced, although they do not comply with the provisions of the grievance procedure,  I find that there was no undue delay on the part of the employer, taking into account the time of year, constraints on the organisation and the need for staff to be able to take time off in accordance with holiday needs and legislation.

However, in all the circumstances, I recommend that compensation in the amount of €500 be paid to the worker to reflect the missed timeframes for the three outcomes.

Having regard to the timeframes laid down in the grievance procedure, I am not satisfied that the time frames set down in the procedure are realistic nor are they clearly set down, instead repeating phraseology that may, or may not relate to an initial complaint.  I also recommend that the working of the grievance procedure be revisited and that the timeframes of a more achievable nature be agreed.

I am not satisfied that any dignity at work complaint was taken by the worker prior to her resignation.

Industrial Relations – grievance procedure timeframe missed – no undue delay – compensation – appropriate timeframes recommended