This matter came before the Labour Court as a double appeal lodged by Waterford County Council and SIPTU, who acted on behalf of the worker. The appeal was lodged on foot of a recommendation handed down by an Adjudication Officer in the Workplace Relations Commission, who found that the worker was treated unfairly when he was unilaterally transferred to another work location, and as a result of delays in completing his formal grievance. The Adjudication Officer recommended that the Employer implement the findings of the Appeal report and that the worker receive €7,000 in compensation in settlement of the dispute.

SIPTU, who acted on behalf of the worker, appealed that recommendation on the grounds that it did not adequately address the worker’s concerns into the future and the compensation awarded was insufficient.

The background to this appeal before the Labour Court arose from an incident which took place in October 2018 when a colleague took issue with an instruction issued by the worker about scanning underground electrical cables. Following this incident, the colleague and another colleague refused to work with him. Thereafter, the worker was absent on sick leave for a prolonged period, during which time he lodged a formal grievance about the treatment that he received from his co-workers and the manner in which his Employer had dealt with the issue.

The worker was then transferred to another site on a temporary basis. His two colleagues remained at his original place of work. After six months, the worker sought to return to his original place of work. This request was refused, and he was informed should he return there he was liable to be disciplined.

Subsequently, the worker appealed that finding on the basis that the employer had failed to address his specific complaints and that he was penalised by his transfer to an alternative site.

An appeal outcome report held that the process followed by employer was fair, however, it had a number of shortcomings.  The appeal report found that the worker should return to the position he held prior to the incident in October 2018, or that an alternative role should be sourced for him, if he did not wish to return to his old role. The Report held that the worker’s colleagues should not have been allowed to refuse to work with him and should be reassigned to other roles. The report was also critical of the length of time taken to complete the initial grievance investigation.

SIPTU submitted on behalf of the worker that the investigation was fundamentally flawed and took a significant period of time to conclude.  The Employer submitted to the Court that it has made every effort to resolve the worker’s issues and return him to work. The Employer rejected any assertion that it sought to penalise the worker by transferring him to another location.

The Labour Court agreed with the Adjudicator Officer’s finding that the worker was treated unfairly in being unilaterally removed from his place of work in such a manner and that the delay in finalising his grievance process served to exacerbate an already difficult situation.

The Court recommended that both sides engage constructively to brings the matter to a speedy resolution and in this regard, recommended that the parties should meet within two weeks of the date of the Labour Court’s Recommendation to discuss

(i) appropriate supports to assist the worker should he decide to return to work in the position he held prior to the incident in October 2018 and

(ii) alternative roles available to him should he decide not to return to his original role.

The Labour Court further recommended that the Worker receive €12,500 in full and final settlement of the dispute.

Guidance for Employers

While delays can often occur when dealing with grievance and disciplinary procedures, it is important for employers to try to deal with matters as soon as reasonably practicable to avoid any prejudice to employees as a result of delays.  
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2022/march/lcr22570.html