ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00004467
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Worker | A Health Sector Employer |
Representatives | Joe Hoolan INMO | Employer representative |
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 - 00004467 | 12/06/2025 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Date of Hearing: 18/06/2026
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended) following the referral of the dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute(s).
Background:
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. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The worker submitted that the employer did not abide by its own grievance procedure when it did not deal with a grievance lodged in accordance with the deadlines laid down in its own grievance process, or indeed at all. The grievance was lodged in May 2024 but has not yet been heard. The employer made one attempt to hear the matter, but the person appointed to hear the grievance recused himself as he had been involved in the issue complained of. Thereafter the matter was tasked to the CEO to deal with and nothing further has occurred. The workers union has written to the employer on a number of occasions seeking to have the matter progressed but has heard nothing further. The worker is seeking that the grievance be heard and that compensation be paid for the delay in dealing with the grievance. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The employer submitted that the matter raised by the worker was embedded into a disciplinary matter. The employer decided that it was more appropriate to conclude the disciplinary process first as it should encompass the grievance raised. The employer’s representative noted that he was unable to find correspondence where this decision was conveyed to the worker. The employer would like to conclude the disciplinary process and if the grievance matter is no dealt with by the process, it may subsequently be revisited. It suggested that the worker has not been prejudiced by any omission. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. The worker lodged a grievance with the employer in May 2024 and the matter has not been concluded to date. The employer suggested that the matter raised by the worker was embedded into a disciplinary matter and decided that it was more appropriate to conclude the disciplinary process first as it should encompass the grievance raised. The employer has not, it appears, communicated this decision to the worker, despite there being aa agreed grievance procedure in place. The first line of the grievance procedure notes that the employer is committed to promoting and maintaining good employee relations and fostering the commitment and morale of staff. The preamble to the procedure continues and notes that the purpose of the procedures to enable employees to raise any complaints concerning work related matters so that the issue may be addressed promptly and as close as possible to the point of origin without disruption to the core work of the employer. The timeline given in the grievance procedure for the various stages is 7 working days. This was not adhered to at all in relation to the grievance submitted more than 25 months ago. The grievance procedure itself notes that stage 4 involves taking a complaint to the WRC however stage 1 does not even appear to have been adhered to, let alone moving through the various stages in a sequential fashion. Having considered all the information submitted, including that this matter inputs to a process that is taking years to conclude, I find the employers lack of engagement with its own grievance process, to be disturbing. At the very least I would have expected a reasonable employer to communicate with a worker and her union when it decided to vary an agreed procedure. In the circumstances of this dispute, I consider that compensation of €2000 is appropriate for this ongoing omission, under no circumstances should a worker be required to take a complaint to the WRC to ascertain the circumstances of a grievance process. That the employer chose to vary its agreed grievance procedure should have been communicated with the worker and her representatives at the earliest possible date, 25 months of silence is not acceptable. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I recommend that the employer pay the worker €2000 in compensation for the extreme delay in processing her grievance.
I further recommend that he employer communicate, without further delay, the current position regarding the processing of the grievance.
Additionally, I recommend that he grievance is processed to completion in accordance with the agreed grievance procedure without any undue delay.
Dated: 29-06-26
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
IR dispute – grievance not processed – no communication with worker – compensation awarded |