The claimant was initially employed by the respondent in 1989 and in late 2008 the claimant successfully applied for a new post. The respondents argued that the claimant did not possess the technical skills for this new role and despite training that was provided, he struggled to meet targets and he began to suffer from stress. They alleged the claimant continued to struggle in his new role and this necessitated him being absent from work on sick leave on a number of occasions. The respondents were aware of the claimant’s situation, having met with him to discuss his difficulties at various intervals and a consultation was arranged with a company doctor in June 2009.

In January 2009, the claimant’s place of work was moved at the respondent’s instruction. It would appear that this change in workplace was a significant factor attributable to the claimant’s work-related stress. The claimant discussed his concerns regarding his new workplace with his employers and he was informed that he had three options from which to choose. First, he could stay where he was. Second, he could return to an airside training role and third, he could be redeployed to some other role, such as health and safety.

The claimant decided to return to an airside training role but it was clear that he felt that he had no option to do so in the circumstances and he repeatedly informed his employers that he was only doing so “under protest”, as provided in the Company Handbook.

On being informed that “his attitude would have to change” by his direct manager, the claimant wrote to a senior manager requesting a meeting to discuss his grievances. A misunderstanding subsequently arose in an exchange of emails between the claimant and his direct manager which escalated and a disciplinary investigation was commenced. The claimant was dismissed. The claimant then appealed this decision, but the decision to dismiss was upheld.

Determination

The tribunal found that the claimant had raised a grievance with his employers which should have been investigated in line with the respondent’s grievance procedures as outlined in the respondent’s Employee Handbook. The tribunal determined that in this case the grievance procedures were not followed. The tribunal did not make any determination on the merit of the claimant’s grievance. It determined that the company’s manager did not understand the grievance procedure, or the right to work under protest contained in the Handbook.

The claimant was awarded compensation of €65,000, or about fourteen months pay for unfair dismissal. He was also awarded €8,414.96 in notice monies.

Legal Review

This is a case which highlights the importance for managers of understanding the application of grievance policies to a situation. In this case, the Employee handbook clearly provided for a situation where a difference of opinion arose in any workplace matter and a policy was in place. In the circumstances, the tribunal were critical of the respondent’s approach to the claimant’s contention that he would only work “under protest” given that this very situation was provided for in the respondent’s grievance policy.

It is unfortunately common in some organisations for managers not to look at grievance or disciplinary procedures before they respond to any situation. It is, in fact, the first thing that should be done.

Conclusion

Employers should be fully conversant with grievance or disciplinary procedures and follow them when applicable. Employers will usually be required to follow their procedures unless:

1. The employee has freely consented to or requested some variation of the procedure (i.e. both sides have agreed an alternative process, as being more suited to the particular circumstances);
2. It is not actually possible to follow the procedure. For example, where the person named in the policy as decision maker is the person against whom the grievance is raised.