Carlow County Council (Represented by Local Government Management Agency) v A Worker (Represented by Services Industrial Professional Technical Union)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 19 December 2022
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2022] 12 JIEC 1901
• Docket Number: FULL RECOMMENDATION ADJ-00030263 CA-00040361 DECISION NO. LCR22690 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
• Court: Labour Court (Ireland)

PARTIES:

Carlow County Council (Represented by Local Government Management Agency)

and

A Worker (Represented by Services Industrial Professional Technical Union)

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/22/208

ADJ-00030263 CA-00040361

DECISION NO. LCR22690

SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969

Full Court

DIVISION:

Chairman: Ms Connolly

Employer Member: Mr Marie

Worker Member: Ms Treacy

SUBJECT:

1 1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No(S)ADJ-00030263 CA-00040361

BACKGROUND:

2 2. The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer's Recommendation to the Labour Court on 12 October 2022 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

3 On 21 September 2022 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:

4 “ That the Parties agree to meet to discuss how best to use the suggestions in the Local Investigation report of October 2020, particularly that of Mediation, as the basis for an agreed way forward. A further Re Investigation by another Party is not warranted and is not Recommended.”

5 A Labour Court hearing took place on 14 Dec 2022.

DECISION:

6 The Court has given careful considerations to the oral and written submissions of the parties.

7 At the centre of the dispute before the Court is a breakdown of personal relationships between colleagues that stems back to 2013. Once a grievance was formally submitted by the Worker in July 2019 delays in progressing a formal investigation served to exacerbate what was already a difficult situation and did not assist in bringing a satisfactory resolution to the Worker's issues.

8 Ultimately, the Worker was dissatisfied with the investigation process and the report findings that issued in October 2020.

9 The Court was advised that following the referral of the matter to the Workplace Relations Commission, the Adjudication Officer issued a recommendation that was partially acceptable to both sides. It is unfortunate that the worker's representative was excluded from correspondence that subsequently issued from the employer in relation to implementing that recommendation, as this appeared to be a relevant factor in the matter being appealed to this Court.

10 At the hearing both sides confirmed to the Court that they are eager to resolve this protracted dispute and are willing to meet to agree a mechanism to progress this matter. However, SIPTU, on behalf of the Worker, expressed its concerns about further delays to this process, and requested that the Court issue a...