Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

General Operative

A Manufacturing Company

Representatives

Marie O'Connor SIPTU

Aisling McDevitt 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 - 00004624

01/07/2025

The Employee is employed as a General Operative and alleged that there was an unreasonable delay in dealing with a grievance he raised.

The Employee started employment in 2013 and was promoted to the Warehouse in 2022 but due to budgets has reverted along with others to a General Operative role. He advised he is at a loss of approximately 27 Euros net per week.

The Employee had no issues with work under the previous Manager but had difficulty with the way the new Manager spoke to him.

The Employee submitted a grievance and went into mediation but was not happy with the outcome.

He lodged the grievance and it took nearly a year to finalise it and he suggested the delay was due to trying to penalise him.

The Employee commenced employment as a Production Operator in June of 2015. The Employee is permanent in this role.  

This complaint relates to a grievance made by the Employee to the Employer, that the Employee asserted that he had been bullied by a colleague. Secondly, he asserted that there was an unacceptable delay in dealing with the Complainant's grievances, alleging a failure to follow policy and a denial of natural justice. The Employer strongly refutes this characterisation. 

 In June 2024 following a business review the Employee was told that  his previous Production Operator role.   

On 21 June 2024: The new Warehouse Specialist role was formally advertised for one week.  

On the 28th of August the Employee raised a grievance that he was bullied by a colleague and in relation to be asked to do a job and that his Supervisor was hostile towards him. 

The “April 2024” episode comprised being called from his break to do a job, to which the Employee objected, which he states caused “hostility”, and being asked to conduct packing, which he questioned. He stated that his Supervisor “had a breakdown and caused a scene” which the Employee deemed to be “childish and petulant”.  

The “June 10 episode” related to the Supervisor allegedly having another “breakdown” and “made another scene just because the Employee merely corrected him” The Employer separated this to ensure both the interpersonal allegations and the operational complaints were investigated distinctly.   He also made allegations about further comments made by the Supervisor.

During this time the Employee stated that he asked his line manager to report the matter to HR. She has since left the organisation however the Complainant’s version of events would appear to indicate that she attempted to resolve the matter informally, which is in line with company policy, and in any case, the Employee knew the relevant grievance policies and procedures, which are well known to him to and to his Union. He submitted a grievance on 28 August.  

13 September 2024: Following the lodgement of his grievance, the Employee met with the APU Manager on 13th September 2024, with a view to clarifying the Employees grievance and explain the process

and get an understanding of the issue and his desired outcome. At this meeting, the Manager proposed a mediation session between the Employee and his Supervisor, to which both parties ultimately agreed.

Mediation took place on November 22nd, 2024, and the Employee did not indicate it was not successful.

In February 2025 following the Employees second complaint regarding another totally different issue it was noted that mediation had taken place between the Employee and his Supervisor with a view to fostering a “more positive relationship between you both”.

On 20 March 2025: the Employee appealed his grievance to stage 3 of the formal grievance procedure.   04 April 2025 the Employee was invited to a Stage 3 hearing   on April 7th.  

In relation to the allegation of bullying, the Employer noted that to its knowledge the matter had been resolved via the mediation process informally and that therefore only the issue regarding the other grievance had been dealt with formally under the stage 2 grievance process. However it was open to the Employee to raise a bullying complaint under the appropriate policy

Delay in Finalising Minutes: The Union highlights the date of the  (May 9, 2025) as evidence of delay. However, the Employer notes that minutes from the April 7th hearing were issued to the Employee on April 10, returned with amendments on April 15, and reissued by the Company on April 17. The Employee then held onto the minutes and returned them unsigned with further new amendments on May 2, 2025. The Company cannot be held responsible for procedural delays directly caused by the Employee reviewing the notes.  

06 May 2025- Invitation to outcome meeting. The Employee was informed that the company noted that additional unsigned minutes had been returned to the Employee but that “the key messages [had] been captured” and that the company was ready to proceed to an outcome. The Employee was informed of his right to be represented at same.

A comprehensive report was issued in May to the grievances.

The Employer submits that there has been no breach of natural justice or fair procedures. The timeline of the grievance process was necessary to facilitate mediation, conduct proper operational investigations, and accommodate the Complainant's own protracted review of meeting minutes. The operational decisions regarding the warehouse were rooted in objective

The Employer denied any bullying was proven and that it acted reasonably at all times, that the internal processes were robust and fair, and that no recommendation in favour of the Employee is warranted under the Industrial Relations Act 1969. 

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.  I have reviewed the written and oral submissions of the parties and note there were three main reasons for the time spent on the grievance. Firstly, the parties entered into mediation and the Employer thought the issue was resolved but that was not the case in the Employees view. Secondly, key staff were absent for planned or unavoidable reasons which contributed to the delay. Thirdly in attempting to understand the issues fully and attempt to resolve them this also took some time and of course the actual investigation took some time to conduct along with getting Employee agreement to the minutes of meetings. It is important to note it is not the role of the WRC to reconduct an internal investigation into a grievance, it is only to examine the investigation for fairness and being conducted properly.  Overall, while the Employee may feel the issue was dealt with slowly having listened to the reasons for the length of time taken, I conclude the time taken is both understandable and reasonable and not unusual in industrial relations terms.

I am satisfied that there was an extensive investigation completed into the Employees complains of bullying and mistreatment and no proof of penalisation was found. Therefore, I cannot conclude that there is merit to the Employees grounds for either of the two issues in his WRC complaint.

At the Hearing the Employer Production Manager reiterated that the Employee was held in high regard and that the Employer was willing to “wipe the slate clean” with regard to any past issues and move on. The Employee advised he wished to do this also.  I highly recommend this course of action. A discussion took place regarding the Employees current location and while not within the remit of the dispute submitted the Employer set out the business reason for his recent job move.

I recommend that the parties should consider the dispute closed.

Grievance procedure

Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

General Operative

A Manufacturing Company

Representatives

Marie O'Connor SIPTU

Aisling McDevitt 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 - 00004624

01/07/2025

The Employee is employed as a General Operative and alleged that there was an unreasonable delay in dealing with a grievance he raised.

The Employee started employment in 2013 and was promoted to the Warehouse in 2022 but due to budgets has reverted along with others to a General Operative role. He advised he is at a loss of approximately 27 Euros net per week.

The Employee had no issues with work under the previous Manager but had difficulty with the way the new Manager spoke to him.

The Employee submitted a grievance and went into mediation but was not happy with the outcome.

He lodged the grievance and it took nearly a year to finalise it and he suggested the delay was due to trying to penalise him.

The Employee commenced employment as a Production Operator in June of 2015. The Employee is permanent in this role.  

  This complaint relates to a grievance made by the Employee to the Employer,  that the Employee asserted that he had been bullied by a colleague. Secondly, he asserted that there was an unacceptable delay in dealing with the Complainant's grievances, alleging a failure to follow policy and a denial of natural justice. The Employer strongly refutes this characterisation. 

 In June 2024 following a business review the Employee was told that  his previous Production Operator role.   

On 21 June 2024: The new Warehouse Specialist role was formally advertised for one week.  

First week of July 2024: Interviews for the Warehouse Specialist role took place. The Employee applied and was interviewed, but was objectively outscored by another candidate. He requested and received his interview scorecard on 9 July 2024.   

On the 28th August the Employee raised a grievance that he was bullied by a colleague and in relation to be asked to do a job and that his Supervisor was hostile towards him. 

The “April 2024” episode comprised being called from his break to do a job, to which the Employee objected, which he states caused “hostility”, and being asked to conduct packing, which he questioned. He stated that his Supervisor  “had a breakdown and caused a scene” which the Employee deemed to be “childish and petulant”.  

The “June 10 episode” related to the Supervisor allegedly having another “breakdown” and “made another scene just because the Employee merely corrected him” The Employer separated this to ensure both the interpersonal allegations and the operational complaints were investigated distinctly.   He also made allegations about further comments made by the Supervisor.

During this time the Employee stated that he asked his line manager to report the matter to HR. She has since left the organisation however the Complainant’s version of events would appear to indicate that she attempted to resolve the matter informally, which is in line with company policy, and in any case, the Employee knew the relevant grievance policies and procedures, which are well known to him to and to his Union. He  submitted a grievance on 28 August.  

  13 September 2024: Following the lodgement of his grievance, the Employee met with the APU Manager on 13th September 2024, with a view to clarifying the Employees grievance and explain the process

and get an understanding of the issue and his desired outcome. At this meeting, the Manager proposed a mediation session between the Employee and his Supervisor , to which both parties ultimately agreed.    

  Mediation took place on November 22nd 2024 and the Employee did not indicate it was not successful.

In February 2025 following the Employees second complaint regarding another totally different issue it was noted that  mediation had taken place between the Employee and his Supervisor with a view to fostering a “more positive relationship between you both”.  

  On 20 March 2025: the Employee appealed his grievance to stage 3 of the formal grievance procedure.   04 April 2025 the Employee was invited to a Stage 3 hearing   on April 7th.   

In relation to the allegation of bullying, the Employer noted that to its knowledge the matter had been resolved via the mediation process informally and that therefore only the issue regarding the other grievance had been dealt with formally under the stage 2 grievance process. However it was open to the Employee to raise a bullying complaint under the appropriate policy

Delay in Finalising Minutes: The Union highlights the date of the  (May 9, 2025) as evidence of delay. However, the Employer notes that minutes from the April 7th hearing were issued to the Employee on April 10, returned with amendments on April 15, and reissued by the Company on April 17. The Employee then held onto the minutes and returned them unsigned with further new amendments on May 2, 2025. The Company cannot be held responsible for procedural delays directly caused by the Employee  reviewing the notes.   

06 May 2025- Invitation to outcome meeting. The Employee was informed that the company noted that additional unsigned minutes had been returned to the Employee but that “the key messages [had] been captured” and that the company was ready to proceed to an outcome. The Employee was informed of his right to be represented at same.

A comprehensive report was issued in May to the grievances.

The Employer submits that there has been no breach of natural justice or fair procedures. The timeline of the grievance process was necessary to facilitate mediation, conduct proper operational investigations, and accommodate the Complainant's own protracted review of meeting minutes. The operational decisions regarding the warehouse were rooted in objective

The Employer denied any bullying was proven and that it acted reasonably at all times, that the internal processes were robust and fair, and that no recommendation in favour of the Employee is warranted under the Industrial Relations Act 1969. 

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.  I have reviewed the written and oral submissions of the parties and note there were three main reasons for the time spent on the grievance. Firstly, the parties entered into mediation and  the Employer thought the issue was resolved but that was not the case in the Employees view. Secondly, key staff were absent for planned or unavoidable reasons which contributed to the delay. Thirdly in attempting to understand the issues fully and attempt to resolve them this also took some time and of course the actual investigation took some time to conduct along with getting Employee agreement to the minutes of meetings. It is important to note it is not the role of the WRC to reconduct an internal investigation into a grievance, it is only to examine the investigation for fairness and being conducted properly.  Overall, while the Employee may feel the issue was dealt with slowly having listened to the reasons for the length of time taken,  I conclude the time taken is both understandable and reasonable and not unusual in industrial relations terms.

I am not satisfied that there was an extensive investigation completed into the Employees complains of bullying and mistreatment and no proof of penalisation was found. Therefore,  I cannot conclude that there is merit to the Employees grounds for either of the two issues in his WRC complaint.

At the Hearing the Employer Production Manager reiterated that the Employee was held in high regard and that the Employer was willing to “wipe the slate clean” with regard to any past issues and move on. The Employee advised he wished to do this also.  I highly recommend this course of action. A discussion took place regarding the Employees current location and while not within the remit of the dispute submitted the Employer set out the business reason for his recent job move.

I recommend that the parties should consider the dispute closed.

Grievance procedure