Employee grievances are part and parcel of the world of work. They surface from a wide variety of sources, including workplace conditions, interpersonal conflicts, perceived unfair treatment, and organisational policies and practices. Properly addressing these grievances is central to the maintenance of good employee relations, morale, job satisfaction, staff retention and an enterprise’s overall success.

This is particularly pertinent at a time when the reputable Gallup international survey tells us that only 10 per cent of employees in Ireland are ‘engaged’, whilst over 40 per cent experienced stress at work ‘a lot of the day yesterday’, 20% experienced anger at work ‘a lot of the day yesterday’ and one in three are ‘watching for or actively seeking a new job’ https://www.gallup.com/workplace/349484/state-of-the-global-workplace.aspx. These are disconcerting findings, especially when allied to the UKG’s recent survey conclusion that nearly half of employees wouldn’t recommend their employer and nearly 40% wouldn’t wish their job on their worst enemy https://www. ukg.com/blog/talent/ukg-survey-findings-how-fix-work-and-engage-employees.

An alarming but consequential upshot from the neglect of grievances is that they may well manifest themselves before a third party, with all of the resource consuming and negative publicity considerations associated therewith. For example, in its last annual report, the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) reported that (in 2023) it had received 14,158 specific complaints for adjudication (a rise of 11% on the previous year); conducted 785 mediations (a rise of 19% on the previous year) and dealt with 654 referrals for conciliation (a rise of 17% on the previous year) Annual Reports & Reviews - Workplace Relations Commission. Of course, it is also true that the failure to effectively address grievances in-house often only encourages staff to leave, whilst the respect and commitment of those who remain may well be lost.

Legal Implications

The importance of effective grievance handling was officially acknowledged in 2000, when the State issued a Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures . The Code’s instruction – which is admissible in evidence in court hearings – is that grievances be ‘fairly examined and processed’ for ‘the maintenance of good industrial relations’. Failure to adhere to this Code featured in 2015, when the Labour Court directed an employee’s reinstatement, as Apple’s grievance (and disciplinary) procedures didn’t conform with the general principles set out in the Code in a number of material respects (AD1526).

Likewise, failure to properly process a grievance may give rise to a third party finding against an employer. For example, only last year the WRC awarded €23,500 against Boots Retail (I) Ltd., as it ‘failed to deal with a collective complaint brought by the employees ..’  (ADJ-00038802). Around the same time, Simpsons Supermarket was directed to pay €30k in compensation to a retail assistant, for failing to adequately address her complaint of sexual harassment (ADJ-00030590). Interestingly, in the previous year (2023), the WRC concluded that a dismissal arising from a ‘wildcat strike’ was unfair, as ‘all the men were looking for was a conversation about pay’ and the respondent should have ‘given them the respect’ of making time for such a conversation (ADJ-00028066).

Similar neglect was displayed in 2024, when the Labour Court upheld a recommendation in favour of a medical doctor, awarding her €4,000 compensation, as her HSE employer failed to apply its own grievance procedure (LCR23003). This failing also featured in 2020, when a building supply company overlooked its ‘detailed grievance procedure’, giving rise to an €8,000 award (ADJ-00022607). Whilst in 2018, the WRC recommended that a local authority pay an employee €6,000 for distress arising from its failure to process his grievance - and then proceeded to advise that the same employer review its position in relation to the application of its grievance procedure (ADJ-00011227). 

Significantly, in the previous year, an ambulance driver - the father of a Down Syndrome child - was awarded the sizable sum of €52,000, as it was held that when he sought scheduling arrangements to enable him to care for his daughter, the employer ‘simply fobbed him off in the most unacceptable manner’ (ADJ-00001306). Subsequently, in 2020, a sales director was awarded €8,000 for constructive dismissal, as the WRC found that his employer had failed to initiate a grievance procedure – despite having been requested to do so. In summary, the WRC concluded that it couldn’t ‘overlook the fact that the respondent failed to commence an official grievance procedure when requested by the complainant’s legal representative’ (ADJ-00022607).

Constructive Dismissal

When it comes to constructive dismissals, it’s legally accepted that though there is an implied contractual term that employees should reasonably and promptly get an opportunity to obtain redress of any grievance, this should normally be availed of before taking action (e.g. resigning). This obligation has long been central to the failure of claimants’ constructive dismissal claims.

However, the complexity associated with such scenarios is apparent from the fact that these claims don’t always fail because one doesn’t use the grievance procedure. That is, each case is assessed on its own merits/demerits (see Allen v Independent Newspapers 2002 13 ELR 84; Monaghan v Sherry Bros. 2003 14 ELR 293). Related thereto, in 2020 the Labour Court found that an employer’s failure to follow its own procedure in dealing with a complaint undermined an explicitly stated core element of the contract of employment, amounting to a repudiatory breach of that contract and an unfair (constructive) dismissal (G4S Secure Solutions v Charana UDD2022). Shortly thereafter, the Court reiterated this requirement (Rehab Group v Roberts - UDD2026) finding it to be ‘clear that the behaviour of the Respondent in not dealing with a complaint by the Complainant was unreasonable behaviour such that it was reasonable for the Complainant to resign from her employment’.

Delays

Delays in processing grievances can also give rise to third party awards, as in 2023, when a hospital operative was awarded €8,000, after he claimed that the grievance process was excessively delayed (IR - SC – 00000932). In the same year, the WRC awarded a psychologist €20,000, after establishing that there were was no official correspondence from the employer in relation to resolving the employee’s issues in the two years after the employee first raised his concerns (ADJ-00020745). Likewise, in 2019, the WRC (in its adjudication) drew attention to the tardiness of a respondent bank in addressing a grievance, as the complainant explained how it took over a year to complete the grievance process - thus giving rise to an award of €7,500 (ADJ-00020385).

This delay deficiency also featured in 2016, when a paramedic seeking a transfer to a base closer to her home to facilitate breastfeeding, secured €2,500 compensation from the ambulance service for the undue delay in processing her grievance. The WRC concluded that it should have taken between 6 weeks and 2 months – as opposed to more than 5 months - to progress the grievance (ADJ-00000314). In a similar vein, in 2015, the Labour Court found that IBM should have dealt with an employee’s grievance more promptly, as it awarded compensation of €2,000 for an inordinate and unjustified delay (LCR21019).

Right to Representation

It is also notable that on the testy topic of union representation, as far back as 2012 the Labour Court recommended that an employee (of Microsemi Ireland) had the right to be represented by a trade union under the grievance procedure, concluding that where one so chooses, he or she is entitled (under the aforementioned Code), to be so represented. This decision was in line with the precedent established in 2005 in the Labour Court case involving Dunnes Stores and Mandate (LCR20283). It is also in line with a 2006 Labour Court ‘opinion’, stating that: ‘the Code Of Practice requires a Grievance Procedure to be in place and provides for an employee to process issues of complaint/concern through that procedure and be represented by a representative of their choice including a trade union official’ (Opinion 62).

Introducing Grievances During Discipline

For various reasons – including attempts ‘to muddy the waters’ - it is not unusual for an employee who is subject to the disciplinary procedure to raise a grievance. The manner in which this should be addressed is largely down to the nature of the grievance and is best evaluated on a case-by-case basis. For example, if the grievance relates to a matter already under investigation as part of the ongoing disciplinary process, the employee can be advised that as the grievance pertains to a matter already under investigation, it should be raised (and can be considered) within that process. That is, if the grievance does not relate to the actual disciplinary process that’s in motion, it can be investigated as part of the ongoing process. In such scenarios, the investigation report should make findings that address both the grievance and the disciplinary issues.

However, if the grievance relates to an aspect of the disciplinary process/procedure being applied, then considerations arise that may necessitate the suspension of that process. That is, the matter may warrant a grievance investigation, that ultimately helps ensure that the employee’s rights to natural justice and fair procedure are not compromised in any way.

Of course, should the grievance not be related to the disciplinary process that’s in motion, then it is appropriate to advise the employee that the issue(s) will be investigated in accord with the organisation’s standard grievance procedure. Hence, in such scenarios the (disciplinary and grievance) processes can proceed concurrently.  Related thereto, the grievance investigation (and any appeal of its findings) should be dealt with by parties that have had no involvement in the disciplinary process.

Best Practices

So, to ensure that one brings the grievance procedure to life in an appropriate manner - to the benefit of all parties and to satisfy one’s legal obligations - it will help hugely to stick with ‘best practice’:

1. The objective of an initial grievance interview is to establish the true nature of the grievance – that is, what is the real issue? Thereafter, agreement may be reached on an appropriate solution. If not, this first meeting should enable the issue to be elevated to the next stage in the procedure as promptly as possible. However, grievances are frequently (and gainfully) amenable to informal resolution, through discussion and mediation. Related thereto, the aforementioned Code explains that it is good practice to have a number of escalating stages in a grievance procedure, progressing from the informal complaint through a number of steps involving more senior management, to the appeal stage. Parties should be afforded the right to appeal the decision within a specified timeframe. The appeal should be in writing and specify the grounds of appeal.
    
2. It is vital that the complainant (and the subject of the complaint) be afforded natural justice, which is repeatedly referenced in the aforementioned Code.  Related thereto, the employee raising the grievance should be allowed to be accompanied by a workplace colleague or a trade union representative.
    
3. To minimise the prospect of a successful constructive dismissal claim, ensure that staff are aware - and can avail – of the relevant procedure. Failure to do so may circumvent any obligation on the employee to exhaust the procedure (as they resign and successfully claim an unfair constructive dismissal). Related thereto, a copy of all relevant policies should be provided as part of the induction process.
    
4. Ensure that each stage of the procedure has clear timelines that are adhered to (i.e. no delay(s)).
    
5. If the employee takes the formal route, their complaint should be in writing, including all relevant details relating to the grievance (e.g. dates, times, witnesses, names of parties to the grievance).
    
6. Don’t victimise or treat an employee differently because they have raised a grievance (n.b. in 2024 the WRC awarded €10,000 against a Local Authority deemed to have penalised an employee for raising grievances (ADJ-00046217)).
    
7. If the grievance relates to a workplace practice, normal work should continue. That is, the employee should be advised that their objection to the relevant practice is noted and being reviewed, but that the ‘status quo’ prevails.
    
8. A record or paper trail of all meetings should be retained and the employee should be provided with a copy thereof. Relevant records should relate to what the grievance was about, any decisions/actions taken as a result and whether the employee appealed the outcome. Of course – subject to the rules of natural justice - all personal information should be kept confidential during the process.
    
9. The organisation should appoint a selection of senior staff capable of hearing grievances. This will enable avoidance of scenarios where staff are reluctant to raise a grievance relating to their immediate manager. Likewise, it is important that a member of management - with no prior involvement (with the employee or her/his grievance(s)) – be tasked with investigating the grievance(s), via terms of reference agreed with the complainant. Furthermore, any subsequent appeal should be heard by a manager with no prior involvement in the process.
    
10. The complainant (and the subject thereof) should be provided with an opportunity to review and comment on the preliminary investigation report, enabling completion of the final report for forwarding to appropriate parties.
     
11. Thereafter, a more senior member of the management team - who should not have been directly involved in the process previously – may meet with both parties to discuss the report. He/She then finalises the decision and issues the findings to the parties (e.g. complainant and accused). This may conclude that the grievance is: (i) upheld; (ii) not upheld; (iii) that there is insufficient evidence to confirm/deny the allegation(s); (iv) that the grievance is well founded and disciplinary action is warranted or (v) that the grievance is vexatious (which may also lead to disciplinary action). 
     
12. Periodic training interventions on ‘Managing Grievances’ should be scheduled for management and H.R. professionals. Amongst other important matters, the training agenda should ensure that those dealing with  grievances know all about: confidentiality obligations, the constraints on their authority, the status of precedents, how to conduct interviews (incl. sensitivity, questioning and listening skills and how to interact with a representative), how to conduct investigations (incl. the rules of natural justice and fair procedure) and the potential relevance of other policies when dealing with an issue (e.g. bullying, harassment, whistleblowing, protected disclosure, health and safety).
     
13. Have an ‘Open-Door’ policy. The promotion of an open-door policy - where employees feel comfortable discussing their concerns without fear of reprisal – is a ‘no brainer’. Whilst it will be an occasional irritant, it may well ultimately serve to spare one an ongoing debilitating irritation, should valuable (but frustrated) team members depart.
     
14. Communicate and explain the outcome of the grievance process, clearly and respectfully, outlining any steps or corrective action(s) that will be taken. Thereafter, follow up with the employee to ensure that the solution is effective and that no further issues have arisen. Where it has not been possible to meet the employee’s request/demand, ongoing monitoring to ensure that matters don’t fester and eventually implode (or explode (e.g. via  resignation or representation)) may well be required in the interests of harmony and morale.

Should ‘push come to shove’, the application of these ‘best practices’ to grievance handling will likely enable a favourable third-party judgement. Industrial relations type hearings are all about finding a fair basis for resolving a dispute vis-à-vis the standards expected of a ‘reasonable’ employer and worker. This was also Tesco’s experience in the employment rights arena in 2023, when the Labour Court accepted its arguments, that they: ‘had a comprehensive grievance procedure .. operated to completion ..with the full participation of the complainant, to the point of .. an appeals process ..’ UDD2317).