FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MAYO GENERAL HOSPITAL - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal of Recommendation of a Rights Commissioner R-034727-IR-05/GF
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant is employed as a Theatre Porter at Mayo General Hospital. The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union that Management at Mayo General Hospital failed to deal with a grievance raised by its member, the Claimant, in line the organisations policies. An independent investigation was carried out following an incident between the Claimant and a Senior Nurse. The dispute arises as a result of a letter of complaint dated 26th September, 2004, received by the Senior Nurse involved in the investigation from another Staff Nurse. The letter was forwarded to the Independent Investigator for consideration. The contents of the letter were then circulated to the parties involved including the Claimant.
- The Union contends that the letter of complaint, which was totally unrelated to the incident being investigated, was issued to the Investigator by the Senior Nurse to strengthen her own complaint against the Claimant. The Claimant was unaware of this complaint and had never seen the letter until it was circulated by the Investigator and was never given the opportunity to respond to it. The Investigator dismissed this correspondence as being irrelevant to the case under investigation and outside its terms of reference.
Management rejects the claim.
- The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and Recommendation. His Recommendation issued as follows:
- “I have considered the evidence given carefully and I must come to the conclusion that both parties agreed to the services of a private consultant to adjudicate in the matters. I must conclude the claimant was not denied natural justice due to this process being followed.”
- The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation.
On the 27th October, 2005, the Union appealed the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 9th May, 2006.
- “I have considered the evidence given carefully and I must come to the conclusion that both parties agreed to the services of a private consultant to adjudicate in the matters. I must conclude the claimant was not denied natural justice due to this process being followed.”
3. 1. what concerns the Claimant is the fact that a complaint against him was circulated to a third party or parties as being factual, when it only describes an incident as perceived by the Staff Nurse. It would appear that the Senior Nurse took advantage of her position as Manager and used her position to conceal this complaint from the Claimant and then proceeded to use it to support her own position during the investigation.
2. Various correspondence was forwarded by the Union to Management seeking the matter to be dealt with in line with the Organisations Grievance Procedure. These have remained unanswered and he has been denied the opportunity of having his grievance dealt with.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Letter dated 26th September, 2004, was prepared in the context of the formal procedure, which was taking place. The contents were considered by the Independent Investigator and were circulated to the relevant parties including the Claimant and his representatives. All parties were given a chance to speak on it.
2. The Rights Commissioner, in his Recommendation, concluded that the Claimant was not denied natural justice and Management sees no basis for this to be overturned.
DECISION:
The Court considers that it would be in the interest of all parties to put the issue giving rise to this dispute (and the events which preceded it) behind them.
The Employer assured the Court that it did not regard the content of the letter dated 26th September, 2004, as constituting an allegation of misconduct against the Claimant and that it does not now regard the Claimant as having misconducted himself in relation to the matters referred to in that letter. It is noted that the Employer is agreeable to repeating that assurance in writing to the Claimant.
The Court recommends that the Claimant should accept this assurance in the spirit in which it is given and on that basis the matter should be regarded as closed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
16th May, 2006______________________
JO'CChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.