Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) - RECENT Decisions & judgements
Decision Not Upheld
Complaint Exhausted under 5 Stage
Internal Organisation Grievance Process not Successful
Case number: ADJ-00003171
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, the Complainant referred a dispute to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) in May 2016 in relation to Bullying, Harassment and Intimidation in her Workplace. The Respondent informed the WRC they would not be attending the Hearing scheduled for August 2016.
The Complainant had been absent on certified sick leave and returned on a phased basis in March 2014. She recommenced sick leave in August 2014 and remained on sick leave at the time of the hearing. Her entitlement to sick pay ended in November 2014.
The Complainant filed a complaint with the Managing Director of the Respondent in November 2014 against her Supervisor. The complaint was passed to the Senior HR Business Partner who acknowledged the letter. The Complainant filed a further complaint by letter in December 2014 addressed to the Manager HR Department. The Complainant alleged she was subject to ongoing verbal abuse, intimidation and harassment by her named Supervisor.
The Respondent committed to arranging a meeting to discuss her grievance and a copy of the Employee Problem Resolution Process was enclosed. This provided for a 5 Stage process in relation to complaints. A Meeting was held between the Respondent and the Complainant in January 2015 at Stage 2 of the Process.
The outcome of the investigation of her complaints was communicated to the Complainant by letter. Two of her complaints were not upheld and the finding in relation to the other two was inconclusive. The Complainant was afforded a right of appeal which she availed of and a Stage 3 Hearing took place in April 2015. The outcome of Stage 3 was communicated to the Complainant by letter in May 2015. One of her complaints was upheld and 5 of her complaints were not upheld. The Complainant appealed the outcome. A Stage 4 meeting was held in July 2015 and the outcome was communicated to the Complainant by letter. None of the Complainant’s four complaints were upheld.
The Complainant moved to Stage 5 of the process in relation to 6 complaints. This Stage 5 meeting was held and the outcome was communicated to the Complainant by letter. Four of the allegations were not upheld, one the finding was inconclusive and one complaint was upheld. A meeting was held with the Complainant to communicate the outcome.
In determination of its findings, and finding the complaint not well founded, the Adjudication Officer noted that the Respondent had a robust internal Grievance Procedure and noted that the process at each stage was comprehensive and the Complainant was provided with the minutes of each meeting and was also given a written comprehensive decision setting out the outcome at each stage of the process.
Interestingly, in this case, as noted above, the Respondent informed the WRC they would not be attending the Hearing. Reference is not made as to whether the Respondent provided a written submission in response to the complaint. Ordinarily, non - attendance by the Respondent (Employer) at a third party hearing is not recommended as it provides an opportunity to the Employer to rebut / defend any such claims.
Having legally compliant policies and procedures in place, in this instance in accordance with S.I. 146/2000 – Industrial Relations Act, 1990 (Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures) and S.I. 17/2002 – Industrial Relations Act, 1990 (Code of Practice Detailing Procedures For Addressing Bullying in the Workplace and applying them consistently and fairly is the best defence any employer can have in such cases.
Decision Upheld
Complaint Exhausted under 5 Stage
Internal Organisation Grievance Process not Successful
Case Number: ADJ-00001383
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, the Complainant brought a grievance to his employer concerning the alleged conduct of his Supervisor. This grievance was not upheld and an appeal hearing was held in November 2015. At the hearing, it was agreed that the Complainant and his Supervisor would continue to work together. The following month, the Group HR Director issued a written decision upholding the original decision, and added an 'added recommendation' that the Complainant be moved to another site, which the Complainant argued was against his wishes and that he was victimised for having made a complaint against his Supervisor.
It is submitted that the decision of the Respondent to move the Claimant from his longstanding workplace given the circumstances was unfair and was in effect a disguised disciplinary sanction. The Complainant further argued the Complainant was in breach of its own grievance procedure by not permitting an appeal of this decision.
In response, the Respondent submitted that the investigation of the Complaint of discrimination was fair and transparent and the finding had not been appealed. The decision to relocate the Claimant on foot of the complaint arose from a recommendation of the investigator and a decision to accept the recommendation was made to provide the complainant with a “fresh start” to improve his performance which had been the subject of high level disciplinary sanction. Additionally the Respondent relied on clause 13 of the contract of employment concerning the need for flexibility of work location to justify its action in this matter.
In determination of its findings, the Adjudication Officer found that the Complainant has been subject to unfair treatment and recommended the immediate relocation of the Complainant to his original workplace (at his discretion), payment of compensation for any loss (if applicable) and that any appeal of the finding of the original investigation be facilitated within 14 days of the hearing outcome date.
The Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary procedures sets out a number of key principles which should be adhered to in any grievance management procedure. It sets out the rights of an Employee which must be upheld throughout the procedure. Although a breach of the Code does not automatically leave an Organisation open to litigation or fines in itself, a failure to adhere to the principles in the Code may increase the risk of a complaint, as in this case.
Fundamentally, given the facts of the case, unsurprisingly, it was determined that the grievance raised by the Complainant was not fairly examined, and that the outcome had not been appropriate given the circumstances.
The establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission on the 1st October 2015 is the most radical restructuring of employment legislation over the last 30 years. Organisations are encouraged to understand all facets of the WRC, how it now operates and what to expect when required to defend a claim at the third parties.
The establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission has seen the combined functions of the Labour Relations Commission, Rights Commissioner Service, the Equality Tribunal, the Employment Appeals Tribunal and the National Employment Rights Authority (NERA). In addition to this the Labour Court has been reconfigured in order to hear appeals.
The strategic aims of the new Workplace Relations Commission include an independent, effective and impartial workplace relations service, a more workable means of redress within a reasonable timeframe and an overall reduction in costs. The new Workplace Relations Commission is also anticipated to be more centralised, in terms of maintaining a database of case information, the end result bring a better service for both Employers and Employees and much more streamlined, simplified process.
Complaint Exhausted under 5 Stage
Internal Organisation Grievance Process not Successful
Case number: ADJ-00003171
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, the Complainant referred a dispute to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) in May 2016 in relation to Bullying, Harassment and Intimidation in her Workplace. The Respondent informed the WRC they would not be attending the Hearing scheduled for August 2016.
The Complainant had been absent on certified sick leave and returned on a phased basis in March 2014. She recommenced sick leave in August 2014 and remained on sick leave at the time of the hearing. Her entitlement to sick pay ended in November 2014.
The Complainant filed a complaint with the Managing Director of the Respondent in November 2014 against her Supervisor. The complaint was passed to the Senior HR Business Partner who acknowledged the letter. The Complainant filed a further complaint by letter in December 2014 addressed to the Manager HR Department. The Complainant alleged she was subject to ongoing verbal abuse, intimidation and harassment by her named Supervisor.
The Respondent committed to arranging a meeting to discuss her grievance and a copy of the Employee Problem Resolution Process was enclosed. This provided for a 5 Stage process in relation to complaints. A Meeting was held between the Respondent and the Complainant in January 2015 at Stage 2 of the Process.
The outcome of the investigation of her complaints was communicated to the Complainant by letter. Two of her complaints were not upheld and the finding in relation to the other two was inconclusive. The Complainant was afforded a right of appeal which she availed of and a Stage 3 Hearing took place in April 2015. The outcome of Stage 3 was communicated to the Complainant by letter in May 2015. One of her complaints was upheld and 5 of her complaints were not upheld. The Complainant appealed the outcome. A Stage 4 meeting was held in July 2015 and the outcome was communicated to the Complainant by letter. None of the Complainant’s four complaints were upheld.
The Complainant moved to Stage 5 of the process in relation to 6 complaints. This Stage 5 meeting was held and the outcome was communicated to the Complainant by letter. Four of the allegations were not upheld, one the finding was inconclusive and one complaint was upheld. A meeting was held with the Complainant to communicate the outcome.
In determination of its findings, and finding the complaint not well founded, the Adjudication Officer noted that the Respondent had a robust internal Grievance Procedure and noted that the process at each stage was comprehensive and the Complainant was provided with the minutes of each meeting and was also given a written comprehensive decision setting out the outcome at each stage of the process.
Interestingly, in this case, as noted above, the Respondent informed the WRC they would not be attending the Hearing. Reference is not made as to whether the Respondent provided a written submission in response to the complaint. Ordinarily, non - attendance by the Respondent (Employer) at a third party hearing is not recommended as it provides an opportunity to the Employer to rebut / defend any such claims.
Having legally compliant policies and procedures in place, in this instance in accordance with S.I. 146/2000 – Industrial Relations Act, 1990 (Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures) and S.I. 17/2002 – Industrial Relations Act, 1990 (Code of Practice Detailing Procedures For Addressing Bullying in the Workplace and applying them consistently and fairly is the best defence any employer can have in such cases.
Decision Upheld
Complaint Exhausted under 5 Stage
Internal Organisation Grievance Process not Successful
Case Number: ADJ-00001383
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, the Complainant brought a grievance to his employer concerning the alleged conduct of his Supervisor. This grievance was not upheld and an appeal hearing was held in November 2015. At the hearing, it was agreed that the Complainant and his Supervisor would continue to work together. The following month, the Group HR Director issued a written decision upholding the original decision, and added an 'added recommendation' that the Complainant be moved to another site, which the Complainant argued was against his wishes and that he was victimised for having made a complaint against his Supervisor.
It is submitted that the decision of the Respondent to move the Claimant from his longstanding workplace given the circumstances was unfair and was in effect a disguised disciplinary sanction. The Complainant further argued the Complainant was in breach of its own grievance procedure by not permitting an appeal of this decision.
In response, the Respondent submitted that the investigation of the Complaint of discrimination was fair and transparent and the finding had not been appealed. The decision to relocate the Claimant on foot of the complaint arose from a recommendation of the investigator and a decision to accept the recommendation was made to provide the complainant with a “fresh start” to improve his performance which had been the subject of high level disciplinary sanction. Additionally the Respondent relied on clause 13 of the contract of employment concerning the need for flexibility of work location to justify its action in this matter.
In determination of its findings, the Adjudication Officer found that the Complainant has been subject to unfair treatment and recommended the immediate relocation of the Complainant to his original workplace (at his discretion), payment of compensation for any loss (if applicable) and that any appeal of the finding of the original investigation be facilitated within 14 days of the hearing outcome date.
The Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary procedures sets out a number of key principles which should be adhered to in any grievance management procedure. It sets out the rights of an Employee which must be upheld throughout the procedure. Although a breach of the Code does not automatically leave an Organisation open to litigation or fines in itself, a failure to adhere to the principles in the Code may increase the risk of a complaint, as in this case.
Fundamentally, given the facts of the case, unsurprisingly, it was determined that the grievance raised by the Complainant was not fairly examined, and that the outcome had not been appropriate given the circumstances.
The establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission on the 1st October 2015 is the most radical restructuring of employment legislation over the last 30 years. Organisations are encouraged to understand all facets of the WRC, how it now operates and what to expect when required to defend a claim at the third parties.
The establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission has seen the combined functions of the Labour Relations Commission, Rights Commissioner Service, the Equality Tribunal, the Employment Appeals Tribunal and the National Employment Rights Authority (NERA). In addition to this the Labour Court has been reconfigured in order to hear appeals.
The strategic aims of the new Workplace Relations Commission include an independent, effective and impartial workplace relations service, a more workable means of redress within a reasonable timeframe and an overall reduction in costs. The new Workplace Relations Commission is also anticipated to be more centralised, in terms of maintaining a database of case information, the end result bring a better service for both Employers and Employees and much more streamlined, simplified process.
Note on WRC:
The establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission on the 1st October 2015 is the most radical restructuring of employment legislation over the last 30 years. Organisations are encouraged to understand all facets of the WRC, how it now operates and what to expect when required to defend a claim at the third parties.
The establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission has resulted in the combined functions of the Labour Relations Commission, Rights Commissioner Service, the Equality Tribunal, the Employment Appeals Tribunal and the National Employment Rights Authority (NERA).
In addition to this the Labour Court has been reconfigured in order to hear appeals.
The strategic aims of the new Workplace Relations Commission include an independent, effective and impartial workplace relations service, a more workable means of redress within a reasonable timeframe and an overall reduction in costs. The new Workplace Relations Commission is also anticipated to be more centralised, in terms of maintaining a database of case information, the end result bring a better service for both Employers and Employees and a much more streamlined, simplified process.
The establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission on the 1st October 2015 is the most radical restructuring of employment legislation over the last 30 years. Organisations are encouraged to understand all facets of the WRC, how it now operates and what to expect when required to defend a claim at the third parties.
The establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission has resulted in the combined functions of the Labour Relations Commission, Rights Commissioner Service, the Equality Tribunal, the Employment Appeals Tribunal and the National Employment Rights Authority (NERA).
In addition to this the Labour Court has been reconfigured in order to hear appeals.
The strategic aims of the new Workplace Relations Commission include an independent, effective and impartial workplace relations service, a more workable means of redress within a reasonable timeframe and an overall reduction in costs. The new Workplace Relations Commission is also anticipated to be more centralised, in terms of maintaining a database of case information, the end result bring a better service for both Employers and Employees and a much more streamlined, simplified process.
Adare Human Resource Management is one of Ireland’s leading Employment Law and Human Resource Management Consultancies. Our HR & Employment Law Support Services include:
www.adarehrm.ie
- Advice on all Employment Law, Industrial Relations and HR queries or issues
- Review, Development and Implementation of Contracts of Employment and Employee Policies and Procedures
- Management and Employee Training - Dignity at Work, Anti-Harassment and Sexual Harassment, Conducting Disciplinary Meetings
- Investigations - independent investigations on behalf of Organisations in line with the relevant legislation and codes of practice
- Organisational Management or Change Management Initiatives – including review / development of Performance Appraisal / Management Systems and Organisational Development
www.adarehrm.ie
