Category: Workplace Relations Commission

One of the most annoying, frustrating individuals I frequently encounter is the well meaning, well intentioned supporter/friend/partner/spouse.

He miraculously appears

1. To know the law inside out
2. To know all the facts and circumstances of the victim’s unfortunate experience in the workplace.

He, and it’s nearly always a he (sorry lads), insists on answering all the questions I put to the aggrieved, distressed employee who has come to me with a problem arising from the workplace.

He means well, sure, but how he can tell me what happened in the workplace on various dates when he was in a different parish is a source of mystery and puzzlement to me. And when he has never worked as much as 5 minutes in that workplace.

How he can tell me, with such vivid accuracy, what the colleague or rude customer or ignorant manager/supervisor said to the ‘victim’-the employee I am trying to assist and advise-baffles me.

Of course, the truth is he doesn’t know what happened or what was said; all he knows is what he has been told by the lady who has come to me for advice.

So, why not let her speak?

Why not let her tell me what happened?

Why not let her tell me what is on her mind?

Why not let her give me first hand evidence by her direct account rather than his second-hand coloured version of hearsay?

Some lads are just irresistible.

No matter how much you try to ignore them, no matter how much you avoid eye contact for fear of encouraging them, no matter how reasonable you act in putting a few questions to the upset employee it proves to be an exercise in futility. They are incorrigible.

And then when it comes to the law-my goodness-they have Googled and researched to their heart’s content for weeks on end and have finally come across one or two cases that have a passing relationship to their partner’s case.

And they have noted the amount of compensation awarded and cannot see why their partner’s case is not worth at least this much along with a significant premium.

The fact of the matter, however, is that these lads know as much about the law as I know about root canal treatment.

Or treatments for depression.

Or genetics or the value of closely studying yeasts.

The best thing they could do would be to give support-real support-to their partner/friend/spouse. Not to interfere or purport to speak for them or overbear their mind to the point where the victim is sitting there without a voice or an opinion and getting increasingly unsure of what happened that led to the problem in the first instance.

But just let them talk, let them tell their story.

Don’t be one of these lads.

You’re in the way.

Sorry. I know you mean well, and you have your friend’s/partner’s interest at heart.

But you would be better off letting your partner/spouse tell her story in her words.

Because apart altogether from the benefit from a legal perspective it’s also therapeutic for the person you love.

If you are the employee, you need to be aware of this phenomenon and avoid it like the plague. It will hinder, not help, you.

It may involve some ‘tough love’, some honesty.

But sometimes ‘tough love’ is just what we need, and what’s right.

If I had a euro for every time an employee told me they had a ‘complicated case’ I would have a nice little stash.

My experience is that most employment cases, and most legal cases, come down to one or two very specific issues. These are the issues on which the entire case stands or falls.

Prove this one or two things and you win; fail to do so and you lose. It is nearly always that simple. The rest is window dressing and so much hot air and bluster.

Employees who tell me they have a ‘complicated case’ fall into one of a few possible categories, the most common of which is they are not sure whether they have a case at all or not.

By ‘case’ I mean a stateable case/justiciable claim/cause of action known to the law. A breach of contract. Or a breach of an employment right. Or a breach of a constitutional right.

A proper bone with meat on it.

Grievances, no matter how many, are probably not going to be enough.

Often what the employee has is a sense of grievance or unfairness or injustice, a sense of ‘this can’t be right’, and a whole pile of issues or complaints gathered up over a period of time.

But they are not actually sure whether the whole lot amounts to a ‘hill of beans’, or a genuine claim or cause of action.

Years ago, when I was heavily involved in retailing, I could walk into a convenience store and get a good feel for the turnover by checking a few key metrics:

1. How many Irish Independents were sold on a daily basis?
2. How many boards of Brennans white pans were delivered?
3. How much milk was supplied.

Once I got a good handle on these figures I could estimate, with a good deal of accuracy, the weekly turnover. Most good retailers could, to be honest.

The same applies to what appears to be an allegedly complex,complicated legal problem. A good lawyer will strip away the trimmings in no time flat and identify the one or two issues that form the basis of any claim.

If he/she cannot identify the issue(s) you can rest assured it is not because it is a ‘complicated’ case. It’s because there is no case.

Not too long ago I was involved in a case at the Workplace Relations Commission in which I received a submission from the other side.

It was impressive. If you are impressed with paper. And folders.

The submission comprised in excess of 15 pages and 147 pages of appendices.

Yes, 147 pages.

My submission was 8 pages.

Yes, 8 miserable pages.

But my 8 pages had a few good things going on:

1. I addressed the issues that had to be addressed in the case
2. The adjudicator was happy because I made it really easy to read
3. I addressed the facts
4. I addressed the law
5. I said why my client should win and told the adjudicator what I wanted him to do and told him about the law that supported this request.

Let me give you an example or two.

If I have a client who claims to have been unfairly dismissed by reason of redundancy he needs to prove one or two things:

1. It was a ‘sham’ redundancy and/or
2. He was unfairly selected.

Other issues like performance, conduct, loyalty, illness related absence, disciplinary record, discrimination, bullying are irrelevant to the case.

Likewise, if an employee claims to have suffered a psychological/psychiatric personal injury in the workplace by reason of workload or stress or bullying or harassment she will need to show:

1. She has suffered a recognised psychological injury
2. The employer’s negligence caused that injury
3. The injury was forseeable and the employer did not act as a reasonable employer would in the circumstances.

If she proves these things she will win, if not her case is almost bound to fail.

If an employee is claiming to have been discriminated against in the workplace he will have to prove facts from which a reasonable inference of discrimination can be drawn.

But to get out of the starting gate he will have to prove these facts first and show he has a ‘prima facie’ case. Only then does the burden of proof shift to the employer with the consequence that the employer has to prove otherwise.

However, if the employee cannot first prove the ‘prima facie’ case the employer has nothing to do as the WRC adjudicator will find the employee has failed to discharge his burden of proof in the first instance.

And the discrimination has to fall into one of the 9 grounds of discrimination.

If it doesn’t then it is not discrimination. And the case will fail.

Conclusion

They say a great story can be told by a simple formula. Like ‘dog chases cat up a tree, cat gets rescued’.

Or ‘boy gets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl again’.

These are uncomplicated stories. But incredibly successful down through the centuries.

In a similar way most legal, and employment law, cases, can be stripped down to bare bones and the issue(s) are visible.

If they’re not, maybe you don’t have a case.

But don’t blame the complexity, or the ‘complicated case’. Because it might not be complicated at all when you strip it down to the bare essentials.