FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE-SOUTHERN AREA - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Bullying and Harassment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the HSE Southern Area and a former employee of Cork University Hospital, represented by SIPTU, who claimed that the Hospital failed to follow their own procedures in relation to an accusation of bullying made by him against a former Supervisor.
The Union is claiming that the employee in question made several attempts to highlight the difficulties he was experiencing but received no support from Senior Management. It is seeking an investigation into the allegations on his behalf.
The HSE rejects the claim on the basis that at all times during his employment, the employee was entitled to raise his grievances under the Dignity at Work Policy. However, at the time of the official complaint, the claimant was no longer employed and was, therefore, not covered by the Policy.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 24th of November, 2004, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th of October, 2005, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claimant had received no support from Senior Management in relation to his grievances.
2. The Hospital is in breach of the agreed procedures with regard to its Dignity at Work Policy.
3. The Claimant was advised by the Employee Relations Section that a complaint could be submitted after he left the employment and it would be heard in the normal way.
HSE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Claimant had an option to formally record his complaint while working at the Hospital. This was not done.
2. The Dignity at Work Policy does not cover former employees, therefore, it is inappropriate to order an investigation into the allegations.
3. A letter was submitted by the Complainant, prior to finishing in his employment confirming that all outstanding issues at the hospital had been resolved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having examined the submissions of the parties, the Court is satisfied that no formal Complaint was made by the claimant when he was employed in Cork University Hospital and when he had the opportunity to do so.
When he did make a complaint, he was no longer an employee and was no longer covered by the Dignity at Work Policy.
In all the circumstances, the Court does not find the Employer to be in breach of its own procedures and rejects the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
20th December, 2005______________________
AH/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.