The Complainant commenced his employment on the 10th of August 2019. Following the appointment of an interim Manager, there were issues with the Complainant’s pay such as hours missing, days not paid and deductions which had never been made before. When the Complainant raised these issues with the Respondent, he was told these would be sorted.

The Complainant stated on a Friday the interim Manager told him his hours of work would be changed from the next Monday. The Complainant said he had worked the same hours since the start of his employment, as agreed with the General Manager, and he did not want his hours changed. Approximately a week later, the interim Manager said the Complainant’s hours were cut. The Complainant submitted this was a breach of contract.

After this incident, the Complainant pointed out what he considered to be a breach of health and safety regulations to the Manager. The owner shouted at him on the factory floor, in front of several people. After that, the Complainant said he was followed everywhere he went and every time he looked over his shoulder, there was someone watching what he was doing and checking his work.

The Complainant submitted he was stopped one morning by the owner, who complained about where he had parked his car, although it was parked in the same place since his employment started without any issue.

The Complainant raised his grievance in writing in relation to the hours of work and the verbal abuse. In response, he received an undated letter stating that on the balance of probabilities, it was his word against the Manager’s and the matter was closed. He was not given an opportunity to appeal this decision. He checked the handbook and there was nothing about an appeal.

The Complainant felt intimidated by the way he was singled out and felt he had no option but to hand in his notice. He gave his notice on Friday the 8th of October 2021.

On Monday the 11th of October 2021, the Respondent asked him to sign a letter confirming he had handed in his notice and the Respondent’s acceptance of it. The following day a meeting was held at which redundancies were announced. However, as the Complainant had already tendered his notice, he was not entitled to any possible redundancy. The Complainant felt he was targeted particularly for this reason.

There was no appearance by the Respondent at the adjudication hearing.

At the outset of the hearing, the Employer’s representative informed the hearing that the Employer would not participate in the hearing. In relation to the matter of hours of work, the Adjudication Officer found that the Employer explained to the Worker in the letter of 30th September 2021 that his hours of work would change from 1st November 2021 and that as of 20th September 2021 any overtime must be pre-approved. While it appears the Complainant was unhappy with the changes, the Adjudication Officer held that “it is the Employer’s prerogative to run the business efficiently and, in the within case, the Employer explained to the Worker that the changes are implemented for the good of the staff and the company and will result in better working conditions. There is nothing to suggest that the Worker was in any way singled out or targeted in relation to the changes.”

The matter of the Complainant’s complaint against the Manager was addressed in the letters of 27th September and 8th October 2021. The Adjudication Officer noted the Employer essentially took the view that “it is one word against another” and that “this matter is closed”.

It was not possible for the Adjudication Officer to establish what the Employer’s grievance procedure was, if any, as they failed to attend the hearing. However, it appears the process was flawed from a fair procedures point of view. The Employer considered the matter open and shut without, it seems, adhering to any procedure.No alternatives such as mediation were considered by the Employer. While mediation is a voluntary process requiring both parties to agree to participate, this option could have been at least explored as it could potentially have resolved any conflict.

Accordingly, the Adjudication Officer found the Employer’s handling of the Complainant’s grievance was procedurally deficient. In the absence of any information as to the grievance procedure, it is impossible to establish whether or not the Complainant had exhausted internal remedies available to him before he decided to resign and refer his dispute to the WRC. The Adjudication Officer ordered that the Respondent pay compensation in the sum of €3,000 to the Complainant.

Guidance for Employers:

It is crucial employers implement a complete and comprehensive grievance policy. They must ensure they afford their employees the right to fair procedures when dealing with a disciplinary matter.

146/2000 Industrial Relations Act, 1990 (Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures)(Declaration) Order, 2000 provides that “Good practice entails a number of stages in discipline and grievance handling. These include raising the issue with the immediate manager in the first instance. If not resolved, matters are then progressed through a number of steps involving more senior management, HR/IR staff, employee representation, as appropriate, and referral to a third party, either internal or external, in accordance with any locally agreed arrangements.”

The orignal case is available here:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2022/september/adj-00035529.html