Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

An Employee

An Employer

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 - 00004244

07/05/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00004245

07/05/2025

The Worker filed two complaints with the WRC, under the Industrial Relations Act – the first pertaining to a return-to-work meeting in which two managers were present, and subsequent engagement with internal HR with regard to same; and the second pertaining to his assertion that he had been the subject of disciplinary action.

The Employer clarified, with respect to the second complaint that the Worker had not been the subject of disciplinary action – that it had checked its records, and there was no verbal warning on file, no written warning on file and further, that the Worker had not been invited to a disciplinary meeting, which would have had to occur in line with the company’s internal policies, in order for there to be any disciplinary record on file.

In respect of the first complaint, the Worker submits that he was ‘harassed’ by two managers, that they ‘made fun of’ his ‘lifestyle’, which he clarified at hearing was his sleep patterns, and that he ‘did not feel safe’ going to work. The Employer emphasised the extensive engagement by the Employer, and further submitted that the Worker’s refusal to engage with the Employer’s internal policies and procedures prejudiced the Employer in its ability to address certain things, e.g. CCTV is only kept for a certain period of time but could have been preserved had the Worker engaged. The Worker had taken the view that the WRC could address the matter, on this occasion. The Employer submitted that both it, and the managers, were prejudiced by the 7-8 month delay in which the Worker refused to engage in the applicable internal process.

At the hearing, the Worker submitted that he wished to resign his employment. He was given an opportunity to consider his position in relation to that, and was to notify the Respondent’s representative the following week, if that was still how he felt.

At the hearing, the Worker raised a whole range of things, many of which were not the subject of the WRC complaints he had originally filed, including, the walkie talkies, use of google chats, the phone, first aid training, chemical training, access to particular software/having to photograph the bookings, where he sits in the workplace.

The Employer engaged with the Worker, at the hearing, on a consent basis, in relation to these matters, as he was still in an ongoing employment relationship with the Employer. It was clarified that the phone is tested and working. The Worker disputed this. The Employer explained that there is a logging system in place, that tests are done, and results are found. It was willing to share the results with the Worker. The same was true for the walkie talkies.

In respect of the issue of first aid training, the chain of command was clarified for the Worker – he was to report the incident, to inform duty managers, who would either attend themselves or assign someone else who is first aid trained – the lifeguards are all first aid trained. The Worker disagreed with this approach.

The Worker objected to picking up glass. The Employer submitted it had provided him with better PPE, when he raised the objection – thicker gloves and utility pants. The Worker’s view was that this was insufficient.

The Worker explained that he has to photograph the bookings on his phone which are on the computer in the main building as that software is not on computers out by the pitches. He said one of the duty managers had commented on him being on his phone – he submitted this made his workplace a hostile environment. Similarly, he objected to the suggestion he said had been made that he had a tendency to sit outside of CCTV. He submitted that that is where the desk is located and that two of the Duty Managers had both given him permission to sit there. He said that the desk was located by the door, where he can see the customers and that it was situated looking out the window at the pitches. He further suggested that this made his workplace a hostile environment.

He submitted that he had raised these things before, that there was no improvement in his situation, that he was the only person on the pitches. He characterised it as a ‘dangerous job’ and a ‘stressful situation.’ This was denied by the Employer, which highlighted extensive engagement with the Worker, and responsiveness to any matters he raised. It was clarified for him that an ‘Incident Report Form has to be filed’ – that they respond directly to any incident which occurs; that any incident requiring first aid was to be reported to the Duty Manager who would take it from there; that any criminal incident e.g. criminal damage or assault, is to be reported to the Gardai.

The Worker submitted that ‘all this has been done already and has failed.’ He submitted that he did not ‘feel safe’ in his workplace. He submitted that he was ‘harassed’ by two managers – this pertains to Complaint no. 1 (the return-to-work meeting). He further submitted that having discussed the matters at the WRC hearing, he ‘still did not feel safe’ going back into work.

The Adjudication Officer represented below a summary of the relevant extracts of the Worker’s submission which pertain to the complaints he has filed. He was self-represented and quite a portion of his written submission was personally aimed at the representative for the Respondent, from IBEC. He wrote his written submission subsequent to his receipt of the written submissions produced on behalf of the Employer, by its representative. The Adjudication Officer clarified for the Worker, at hearing, that the Employer’s representative is not acting in a personal capacity, but rather on the instructions of the Employer, in her professional role; and that his characterisation of her/her role is not correct. The Adjudication Officer has not had regard to the portions of the Worker’s written submission which are inappropriate, in that regard.

The Worker filed two complaints under the Industrial Relations Act 1969:

As per his complaint form – Complaint 1

‘I was unknowingly brought into a 2 v 1 meeting with two managers without any prior knowledge said meeting would take place., both managers proceeded to make fun of me, laugh at me, make accusations at me and harass me…. They made comments about my lifestyle, as well as intimidated me’. These claims will be shown with evidence and my account of the meeting and the complaint that I have faced multiple instances of bullying, harassment and unfair working conditions.’

Particulars of Complaint 1, as per his written submissions:

On, 26th March 2025, the Worker submits that he asked Duty Manager 1 upon clocking in early for his shift was there anything he would like him to do before heading to the pitches. He asked the Worker to “just keep an eye on the gym for a while.” Subsequently, he submits that he was approached by the Duty Manager 1 after he sent him to the gym floor, who said to him, “What’s the story, you coming down the stairs?” to which the Worker replied, “Of course…” The Worker submits that from the gym floor to the Duty Manager’s office, Duty Manager 1 did not once mention any impending meeting or that Duty Manager 2 was waiting for them in the Duty Manager Office.  The Worker objects to the lack of notification of the meeting, and highlights that he had returned to work on 25th March, 2025. He submits that both of those Duty Managers and also Duty Manager 3 had over 24 hours prior to this meeting to notify him it would be taking place, but did not do so. The Worker submits that this is unusual, insofar as he has had multiple return-to-work meetings and he was always told beforehand. He further submits that the meetings were typically conducted by one person. He had never before had a return-to-work meeting with two Duty Managers.

He submits that, at the meeting, Duty Manager 1 and Duty Manager 2 told him they had brought him in regard his absence. He submits that he had notified Duty Manager 3 via workplace voice call and message at 4:25pm (Appendix 1) that he had to take his cousin to A & E, that it was a family emergency and, that he was the only family member present at the time and did not want to leave his cousin alone. The Worker submits that they asked him questions about the particulars of the events, and he submits that they told him they ‘didn’t believe him’ and characterised him as ‘lying.’ He submits Duty Manager 2 was ‘argumentative’ and referenced members of her own family and their experiences of A & E.

The Worker submits he was asked me why he did not reply to Duty Manager 3 via workplace on 25th  March 2025 before 2 pm; and he told them that while on the way to A & E, he was in contact with her via workplace call (appendix 1) on Monday March 24th and that I would be in work on Tuesday March 25th and she was okay with that.

The Worker submits that when he stated that he woke up on March 25th at 2pm both managers laughed at him with Duty Manager 2 saying, “Are you for real” and Duty Manager 1 stating, that “no one wakes up at 2pm I don’t believe that”. He submits that he found it outrageous that his sleep schedule was brought into question and laughed at in a meeting and that they made fun of him for it.

The Worker highlights the Employer’s submission in which it says that both Duty Managers asked him if there was anything they could do to support him and that he said ‘No.’ He does not dispute that but submits that this was in light of the events of the meeting, i.e. in the context of what he submits was laughing at his sleep schedule.

[At the hearing, the Worker submitted that the Duty Managers were laughing at his lifestyle, in that meeting. The Adjudication Officer enquired of the Worker what he meant by ‘lifestyle’. He clarified that what he meant was that they were laughing has his sleep schedule.]

The Worker submits that when he left the meeting, he was told by Duty Manager 1 that the gym was okay and that he was to report to the pitches for the night, which he did. He submits that upon arriving to the pitches he contacted HR Manager GB and told him what had transpired.

The Worker denies the Employer’s submission (on page 2 & 3) that: “He did not provide any explanation for being absent on the Tuesday night, or for the failure to ring in on Tuesday until later in the day”. He submits that he was not absent on Tuesday March 26th. He submits that he did attend work on the day; and further submits that he explained to the Duty Manager what had happened, over voice call, apologised for the sudden absence on Monday, March 25th and performed his duties that night. He further denies the suggestion that he left the shift without telling the Duty Manager he was leaving. He submits that he contacted the Manager via message to say he was finished and stayed on site until he received a reply okaying him to leave.  

The Worker submits that all return-to-work meetings have been held in with either Duty Managers or HR Managers throughout his employment with the Employer, the only difference being he

was not notified ahead of this one.

He submits that he was lead unknowingly into a 2 V. 1 meeting, (involving Duty Manager 1 and Duty Manager 2 and the Worker) where he submits he was intimidated, laughed at and made fun of.  The Worker submits that there was a previous incident in August 2024 pertaining to Duty Manager 3. The Worker submits that the previous incident was dealt with internally by HR.

However, he submits that the second time around, he thought it was fitting for the WRC to address the issues, as he submits that HR was not helpful in ensuring he was not the target of improper behaviour from management.

The Worker objects to the characterisation of him as argumentative, by the representative for the Respondent.

The Worker submits that the Employer sought proof of his disability, which he submits is discriminatory as he submits he did not stop working because of his disability, but rather due to his working conditions and behaviour of management.

The Worker submits that even after receiving fit to work certs, sick notes etc., that the HR Manager, GB, refused to let him return to work until the Worker gave him proof of his disability. The Worker submits that he did not request accommodations in his workplace but rather that he asked that due to his disability that he have a witness with him during his meeting with HR Manager to ensure he was treated fairly.

As evidence of ‘other harassment and abuse of power’, the Worker cites two instances of being asked to pick up glass using latex gloves on his hands and knees and comb through Astro turf.  He submits that a Zamboni machine was used on the second occasion, when it was impossible for him to do it manually. [The Employer submits that the Complainant was provided with appropriate PPE – thicker gloves and utility pants in order to safely perform the task.]

Other issues raised and discussed at the hearing included those set out below.

The Worker submits that there were delays in addressing issues he raised, inter alia:-

-          Getting a new phone installed

-          Being given a panic button

-          Proper PPE

-          The Defibrillator being serviced

-          Chemical training – request for training declined by Employer

First Aid Training

The Worker objects to the fact that he has not received first aid training. [Adjudication Officer’s Note: At the hearing, the chain of command was clarified for him, as to who he is to contact in the event of an emergency – the Duty Manager who will either attend him/herself or assign someone to attend. The Worker disagrees with the decision of the Employer in relation to this.]

Desk location

The Worker submits that he sits where his desk is located in the reception area. He submits that it is where he can face the door and watch the cameras to see who enters and leaves, and that it is located next to the window to have a view of all the pitches. He submits that it is also located within 2 metres of the phone; and that he has been instructed to use GoogleChat to contact the Duty Managers.

Walkie talkie issues

The Worker submits that management agreed that there were walkie talkie issues, that they do not work properly, and that he was instructed by management that if he is hearing static and muffled conversations to just turn it off and contact them through google chat if required.

Computer software programme/Phone use

The Worker addressed this issue of computers, a specific [name redacted] computer programme for taking bookings and the use of his phone. He explained that he had permission to use his phone, as he had to photograph the bookings on the computer in the building; as the computer near the pitches did not have the relevant software.

The Worker’s second complaint relates to a concern the Worker raised in relation to having been the subject of alleged disciplinary action. [The Employer clarified at hearing that there was no verbal warning on file, and no disciplinary sanction had been imposed; and that the Worker would have had to have been formally invited to a disciplinary meeting, in line with the process, which did not happen.]

Below is the Employer’s submission in respect of this case. There was a clarification provided at hearing in respect of the dates of an attempt to proffer a resignation by the Worker – that pertained to 2024 (and a previous matter which was mediated by HR at the time), and not 2025. I have taken that clarification that into consideration, when including the relevant portions of the submission provided.

It is submitted that the issue herein concerns a claim by the Worker under the Industrial Relations Act 1969-1990 into a complaint that ‘I was unknowingly brought into a 2 v 1 meeting with two managers without any prior knowledge said meeting would take place., both managers proceeded to make fun of me, laugh at me, make accusations at me and harass me…. They made comments about my lifestyle, as well as intimidated me’ (Appendix 1). These claims are vigorously denied by the Respondent Employer who notes that the Worker has consistently refused to engage on his concerns via the internal procedures despite significant efforts.

The Worker commenced employment on 23rd April 2024 as a part time pitch attendant working a minimum of 20 hour per week, Monday to Sunday with rosters published monthly. He signed this contract on 23rd April 2024. His contract required him to contact the Duty Manager by telephone prior to 9.30am if working on the late shift. He completed a full induction training and received comprehensive safety training together with induction on the company disciplinary and grievance procedure. He signed to say he received this induction on 2nd July 2024. He was issued contract addendum letters as his rate of pay changed which made it clear that the company handbook formed part and parcel of his contract of employment (Appendix 2). He had been issued with the Employee Handbook as part of his contractual documentation. This handbook contains detailed employment policies and procedures including a Grievance Procedure and Dignity & Respect at Work policy (Appendix 3).

Between January and March 2025, the Worker had several instances of absence, totalling 17 days. In early March 2025, following the first series of absences, a return-to-work meeting was held with him and it was identified to him that his absence level was high, given that it was only March 5th. He was asked to watch his absence going forward. He was given the opportunity to identify anything that the company could do to support him and replied ‘No’. The Worker reported a further absence for the evening of 24th March and did not report for his shift reporting his absence at 16:30 in the evening shortly before his shift was due to start and well outside the reporting time contained in Company policy. On his return to work form he identified that he had to bring his cousin to A & E. He did not report his absence until 16.30 on the 24th. Copies of the return-to-work forms and medical certs are attached as (Appendix 4).

A meeting took place with the Duty Manager on his return to work on 26th March. A copy of the initial email reporting the meeting is attached as (Appendix 5). Following receipt of the Worker’s allegations about this meeting, the other manager present at this meeting was asked to produce a written report of this meeting which is also attached as Appendix 5. Both managers were consistent in their recollection of the meeting that:-

• He was asked if everything was ok and if he needed support with anything?

• The Worker felt justified in being absent on Monday night due to the need to bring his cousin to A & E with a head injury. He did not provide any explanation for being absent on the Tuesday night, or for the failure to ring in on Tuesday until later in the day.

• His manager had messaged him on chat at 9am on the Tuesday to see if he would be in on the Tuesday night but he didn’t reply until 2pm. He maintained that he had a right to disconnect and that he replied to A. when he woke up.

• He left the site that evening without completing his shift or without telling his Duty Manager that he was leaving early. It is important to note that the Worker was not ambushed to attend this meeting. On his reporting to work, he was not present in his normal place of work as pitch attendant. The Duty Manager went to find him and found him in the gym, which was not his work location on his mobile phone. The manager asked him to come to the office and brought another manager in as a witness. The Worker did not tell anyone on site that he was leaving work prior to the completion of his scheduled shift. Instead, he contacted the HR manager via Workspace, the internal messaging system, complaining about the managers conduct of the meeting. A screenshot of his message is attached as (Appendix 6).

He was asked by the HR manager to put his issues on an email. The Worker emailed a grievance to the HR manager on Thursday 27th March which also included health and safety issues that were not flagged in his workspace message. He was invited to meet with the HR manager on Friday 28th  March to further discuss his grievance at either of two named locations [redacted]. The Worker replied seeking to bring his own mediator to the meeting.

The HR manager replied clarifying that there was no need to bring another person to the meeting, nor was it allowed but confirming that he still expected to meet with him tomorrow to hear his grievance. The Worker replied maintaining that he was entitled to bring a representative to an informal meeting under the grounds of having a disability which he had and telling him that if he would like doctor’s certification stating so. The HR manager replied clarifying that it was an informal meeting, asking him to clarify the name of the person he wished to bring with him and asking him to explain his capacity or profession as there was no requirement for a mediator. The Worker responded advising that his diagnosis was made during his time off, alleging that he received an official verbal warning at the meeting of the 25th and alleging that he didn’t feel safe at work (Appendix 6).

A further email was sent by the Worker approximately two hours later on the Friday afternoon alleging unsafe work practices in being asked to pick glass up off a pitch using latex gloves and making allegations about carrying rubbish bags between sites (Appendix 7).

The HR manager replied the following Monday morning at 10.40am offering a grievance hearing with the Operations Manager (Appendix 8). The Worker didn’t accept this offer and called in sick at 15.30 that afternoon alleging that this was more than an hour’s notice and that he would have medical certificates (Appendix 9).

The Worker sent another argumentative email late on Monday evening alleging that:

• He was being asked to meet with people he was taking the grievance against (which was factually incorrect);

• He was not the correct person to hear the grievance;  

• This was the second time managers had failed to follow formal procedures;

• Alleging he had notes of multiple instances and occurrences, most of which involved former staff in this area;

• Categorically refusing to deal with the HR manager going forward on his issues and indicating his intention to go to the WRC.

The HR manager replied on Tuesday afternoon (Appendix 10) seeking to clarify any misunderstanding and advising that:-

• He was eager to sit with him and address his issues from the email of 27th March

• Asking him to disclose his disability as this would allow him to make accommodations within the workplace

• Explaining that from the discussions, if there is a need for mediation or a witness to be there for him, the company would explore this but there first step was to explore the issues and identify next steps.

• Explaining that his role is to work and address the Worker’s concerns and facilitate whatever steps or actions are necessary to resolve them.

No response was received to this email and a follow up email was sent on 3rd April 2025 (Appendix 10). The HR Manager emailed the Worker to follow up with him to see if he will be attending work due to the management team in [location redacted] not being able to get a hold of him.

The HR Manager reassured him that he was his point of contact for all his issues and concerns.

The Worker had indicated previously he was handing in a medical certificate, and the HR Manager had reminded him that without a medical cert., he will be recorded as having an unauthorised absence if he did not attend work.

The Worker replied on April 5th to advise he was meeting his doctor on Monday 7th. He continued to refuse to meet unless he could bring an external mediator with him. He explained that medical certificates would be provided but he sought payment for holidays requested. A backdated medical certificate was submitted on 7th April 2025, certifying him as unfit from 31st March to 11th April 2025.

The company wrote to him at his home address on 9th April noting that (Appendix 11):-

·       He had supplied medical certs from 31st March to 11th April

·       The company was not permitted to allow him to take annual leave while on certified sick leave

·       Noting that no mention of disability was made on his medical certificate;

·       Explaining that he had been offered two opportunities to meet with HR and one opportunity to meet with the Operations Manager

·       Providing him with a copy of the grievance procedure and encouraging him to deal with matters internally in the first instance.

·       Putting him on notice of a potential occupational health appointment.

The Worker replied on 12th April taking issue with the record of event by email (Appendix 12). The same day he replied advising that he wished to return to work but for his safety he would ask that he only does his duties and post and that he spends the whole shift at the pitches. The HR manager replied noting that his return to work would allow the parties to discuss and resolve his issues from the email sent to HR on 27th March 2025. He asked for a fitness for work certificate from his doctor and details of the disability so that any accommodations could be identified (Appendix 13). The Worker replied saying that he needed to see his doctor (Appendix 14). Conflicting medical certificates were provided by different GPs in the same practice (Appendix 15). One certificate certified him as unfit for work between 12th April and 26th April and another was supplied on 21st April 2025 certifying him as unfit from 26th April to 9th May (Appendix 16). A fitness to return to work certificate was supplied certifying him as fit to return with effect from 29th April 2025 (Appendix 17). As these certificates are undated, it is not possible to confirm when they are issued merely the date of receipt recorded by the Respondent. Furthermore, no further information about his disability was supplied despite the request having been made by the Respondent.

Some days later on 9th May 2025 and following an email argument from the Worker that the report should be paid for by the Respondent, a separate doctor’s letter was finally supplied dated 28th April 2025 identifying that he had been diagnosed with Generalised Anxiety Disorder with effect from 28th April 2025 (Appendix 20). This was inconsistent with the Worker’s assertions that he had a diagnosed disability notified to him during his previous absence in February 2025. During his email argument, the Worker informed the Respondent employer that if they wanted proof of his disability, they would have to pay for it and accusing the Respondent of using this as grounds for denying him the opportunity to return to work (Appendix 18).

On 13th May 2025, the Worker attended a pre-arranged occupational health appointment which had been notified to him on 6th April 2025 (Appendix 19). He was found fit to resume work with reduced hours for the first week with a return to full hours and duties during week two (Appendix 21). On 16th May 2025, the Company received a copy of the Occupational Health Report which was immediately provided to the Worker, together with the return-to-work plan. It was confirmed that a day and time will be arranged to complete his return-to-work interview along with scheduling a day and time to sit down and discuss his concerns from 27th March 2025. The Worker responded back the same day, alleging that his employment rights had been violated and that it was confirmed by his doctor and the company doctor that his stress is work related. He refused again to meet with his employer about his work issues, stating that he was in contact with the WRC and stating that he would be bringing statements from past and present employees. (Appendix 22)

A return-to-work interview was held on 21st May where he confirmed there was nothing that the employer could do to support him. He was provided with the opportunity to discuss his grievance and refused to do so. He was provided with another copy of the grievance procedure which he refused to engage with stating that he was already in contact with the WRC. He confirmed that he was happy for the WRC to deal with his concerns and he refused to engage in the internal processes. (Appendix 23) He also emailed the HR manager the same day alleging unprofessionalism with the sharing of his roster (Appendix 24). The HR manager confirmed that he was his point of contract with regard to his concerns expressed on 27th March.

A further issue with the internal Workplace communication system was flagged at 18.17 that evening together with concerns with walkie talkies not working, and use of urinal mats (Appendix 25). A further email was sent by the Worker to the Operations Manager on 22nd May 2025. The Operations Manager replied to this email setting out the process for raising of health and safety concerns. (Appendix 26) He also arranged for a panic button to be installed, dealt with his concerns about the use of walkie talkies and dealt with his concerns about logging into Google chat which was the new system to replace Workplace.

On 22nd May 2025, the HR Manager also wrote to the Worker acknowledging receipt of his email from 21st May 2025. He also corrected the factual record as follows:-

• He confirmed he was in contact with the management team in [location redacted] along with the senior manager of operations to discuss the concerns the Worker had from his email.

• He confirmed the return-to-work interview held on Wednesday 21st May 2025.

• He acknowledged receipt of the Worker’s email from 16th May 2025.

• He confirmed with the Worker that he had received a copy of the Employer’s Grievance procedure and Dignity and Respect policy.

• He repeated that he was happy to arrange a day and time to discuss his concerns and that he would need any complaint in detail, where we can go through it and sign it.

• He acknowledged receipt of the Worker’s complaint under the IR Act and asked him again to use internal procedures.

The Worker replied to the HR Manager at 17.26 the same day alleging that it was a conflict of interest for him to mediate any proceedings as he himself was the subject of the complaint along with multiple others along with various other allegations (Appendix 27).

A process was put in place to address any safety concerns raised by the Worker immediately. Examples of these types of issues and efforts made to address the Workers concerns are included in four emails attached as Appendix 28-Appendix 30). A further concern raised by the Worker in respect of his walkie talkie was addressed immediately (Appendix 31).

On 28th May 2025, the HR manager emailed the Worker again confirming receipt of his email to both the HR Manager and the Ops Manager. The HR Manager confirmed that all issues have been addressed from his email sent on 21st May 2025 and asked the Worker to confirm this (Appendix 32). He also urged the Worker to reconsider using our internal processes to resolve his concerns and that we are happy to arrange a day and time with him as per our company policy. He confirmed that he could bring a work colleague with him to support him through the process. The Worker replied advising that most of his issues were resolved but still having trouble with walkie talkies and needed a google chat password change. This was resolved on the day and another retest of walkie talkies on the pitch was carried out where the walkie talkies were found to be working.

The Worker also alleged that:-

• It caused him great financial stress not being allowed back to work without a proof of disability.

• The HR Manager showed no compassion and was very negligent with his concerns.

• The persistent pressure to sit down and discuss his issues was borderline intimidation.

• He will not sit down to discuss his issues, and all further proceeding will be through the WRC.

On 29th May 2025, the HR Manager replied giving the Worker an alternative contact in the HR department to discuss his issues and providing these contact details if he wanted to reach out. He confirmed that an in-person walkie talkie test would be carried out. The Worker engaged with the Duty Manager during June about various operational matters. He refused to sit in the reception area in view of the CCTV and moved his workstation away from the landline phone which had been installed to address his safety concerns. He asked the Duty Manager for a computer which was declined. A further check in on 4th June ended up with the Worker leaving his shift early stating he had acid reflux. Additional grievances raised by the Worker during July 24th were dealt with and resolved without delay by the HR manager (Appendix 34A and 34B).

On 6th August 2024, the Worker resigned his employment citing a violation of his contract of employment. The HR Manager acknowledged this email the following morning and scheduled a date for a meeting. A meeting took place at 12.30pm that day. (Appendix 34) The Worker subsequently withdrew his resignation and remains in employment (Appendix 35).

The Employer submits that

The Employer has made repeated efforts to address the Workers grievances, but the Worker has categorically refused to engage in the designated procedures at local level to address his concerns.

No disability was placed on prior notice to the Respondent prior to seeking accommodations at a meeting. No medical evidence was provided to place the Respondent on notice of any required accommodations. Medical evidence subsequently provided demonstrated that no diagnosis was in place at the time alleged by the Worker.

The Worker was cleared as fully fit to return to work following a period of sick leave but again refused to engage at local level to resolve his concerns.

The Worker was given a number of alternative managers to meet with to address his concerns but refused to engage with any of them.

A number of additional issues flagged by the Worker internally have been dealt with and resolved internally without issue. In the interests of good industrial relations, it would be preferable if the Worker engaged directly with his line management to resolve his issues without the need for ongoing HR involvement.

At oral hearing, it was emphasised that:-

The Employer submitted that – in relation to complaint no. 1 - the company was unable to test the Worker’s version of events for 7/8 months, that the Worker’s refusal to take part in the local processes had the effect of prejudicing the Employer’s ability to respond. It was submitted that the return-to-work meeting was a small issue, that it is not unusual to have two managers at a return-to-work meeting, and that it was also reasonable to talk to the Worker about his level of absence.

The Employer disputed the Worker’s claim that he does not have trust in the HR process and highlighted his response to the HR Manager who had mediated the matter which occurred in 2024. It was submitted that that was not the response with somebody was unhappy with a process or with an outcome.

It was submitted that (Appendix 7) undermines the allegation that there is a culture of bullying in the place, that it represents a friendly interaction between two work colleagues.

The Employer submitted, inter alia, that:-

-          The phones work.

-          The walkie talkies work.

-          The panic button has been installed and works.

-          The Worker has been asked to raise it if he needs any equipment.

-          Thicker gloves and utility pants were provided.

It was emphasised that managers have been denied the opportunity to respond by the Worker’s refusal to engage at local level.

In relation to complaint no. 2, it was submitted that no disciplinary action had been taken against the Worker, and there was no record of any disciplinary action or sanction on his file.

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

Adjudication Officer’s Note:

At the end of the hearing which ran over the course of two hours, the Adjudication Officer enquired of the Worker if he had had an opportunity to say everything he had come to say. He checked his notes and confirmed that he had. He shook my hand before leaving and thanked me.

After the hearing, the Worker subsequently wrote in to the WRC alleging he had not been afforded reasonable accommodations or an opportunity to present his case.

However, he had never requested any reasonable accommodations. None are requested on the WRC complaint form. None were requested on the day. Prior to the hearing, the Worker asked the Adjudication Officer if his grandfather could attend the hearing. The Adjudication Officer enquired as to whether he would be assisting the Worker in presenting his case. He said ‘no’, that it was ‘just for a bit of moral support, really.’ As it was a closed hearing under the Industrial Relations Act, the Adjudication Officer explained that in those circumstances, he could not attend.

At the hearing, the Worker was afforded an extensive opportunity to present his case – as it was an industrial relations matter, the format was an informal one. In fact, the Employer engaged with the Worker, at the hearing, in relation to a whole range of things that did not form part of the two specific complaints he had filed with the WRC, on a consent basis, as there was an ongoing employment relationship, and the Worker had been refusing to engage directly with the Employer.

The Worker indicated at the hearing that he wished to resign his employment. He was given an opportunity to think about that, and contact the Employer’s representative the following week, if that was still how he felt.

IR – SC – 00004244 – I do not recommend for the Worker. The Employer has extensive internal policies and processes. It is not appropriate for the Worker to by-pass those and take a case to the WRC. I accept that local engagement with the Worker by the Employer has been exhaustive. Any issues the Worker raised have been engaged with and addressed, in good faith, by the Employer, as he has raised them.

If the Worker is no longer in the employment of the Employer, I make no further recommendation.

If he is still in the employment of the Employer, I recommend that the Employer engage with him in relation to the matters it agreed to engage with him, on a consent basis, e.g. sharing with him the testing log for the walkie-talkies and the phones, to allay his concerns in that regard.

If the Worker is still in employment, I recommend that gong forward, he raises operational issues through his line manager, as appropriate, rather than through HR, at first instance.

IR – SC – 00004245 – I do not recommend for the Worker. The Employer has clarified it had checked its records and that there is no verbal warning or written warning is on file. The Worker’s assertion that he was the subject of disciplinary action or that he has a disciplinary record is simply not correct. The Employer clarified that, in any event, the Worker would have had to have been formally invited by letter to a disciplinary meeting, in line with the Employer’s policies, which never happened.

Industrial Relations