FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : H.S.E WATERFORD REGIONAL HOSPITAL - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Alleged Harassment And Withdrawal Of Written Warning.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court concerns a verbal written warning and the alleged ongoing harassment of the Worker by Management at the Hospital. The Worker was certified unfit for work by his Doctor for two days, a Thursday and Friday. He informed management he would return to work the following Monday. On the Friday of his certified sick leave, a colleague asked the worker if he could cover a job that needed to be done in the hospital on Sunday. The worker agreed to do so. On his return to work on Monday, the worker was asked to produce a doctor's certificate covering the weekend also. The Union contends that the workers colleagues have never had to produce certs for weekends and also that weekends are not classed as normal working days in the Maintenance Departments. A disciplinary hearing took place concerning the issue and a verbal warning was given to the worker. The Company contend that there is no record of a complaint of harassment and that the verbal warning has been removed from the Worker's file as the 6 month expiry date has passed.
On the 28th August, 2007 the Union referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A labour Court hearing took place on the 12th March, 2008. The Union agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The verbal warning is one of many instances of Management harassing the Worker. Management did not allow the appeal mechanisms to be exhausted.
2 The then Chief Executive Officer of the South Eastern Health Board carried out an investigation into allegations of Bullying and harassment. The outcome of this was inconclusive and unsatisfactory to the Worker.
3 The Union are seeking to have the verbal written warning totally overturned and withdrawn from his file. The Worker informed Management he would be returning to work on Monday. His doctor's certificate covered him for Thursday and Friday. He did not need a cert for the Saturday and Sunday. The weekends are not classed as normal working days in the Maintenance Departments.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 A verbal warning was issued to the worker. A note of this warning was placed on the Workers file and removed after the 6 month expiry date. There is no record of the warning on the Worker's file at this time.
2 Their is no record of a complaint of harassment by the Worker through the internal procedures of Waterford Regional Hospital regarding the verbal warning.
3 The Health Service Executive submits that it acted correctly in this matter. The internal appeals procedures were not exhausted prior to the making of a third party referral.
RECOMMENDATION:
The case before the Court concerns the worker’s claim that a verbal warning was inappropriately given to him. He sought the withdrawn of the warning from his file and cessation of (alleged) harassment. The Court has considered the oral and written submissions of the parties and has concluded that the disciplinary procedures applicable were not properly applied in this case. The Court notes the circumstances which gave rise to the issuance of the warning - not informing management of return to work following a short period of illness/non-provision of a medical certificate for a Saturday/Sunday.
Having considered the matter, the Court finds the following deficiencies in the process which took place:
-there were no details of the unsatisfactory conduct described on the notification of the verbal warning,
-the appeal process was dealt with without a hearing.
The Court is of the view that the problem which gave rise to the issuing of the verbal warning should have been capable of being dealt with at local level without recourse to the disciplinary process and recommends that the parties should make every effort to address any residual difficulties and restore a proper working relationship, with the assistance of mediation if deemed necessary.
The Court notes that the details of the verbal warning have been expunged from the worker’s file and will not be referred to again. The Court recommends that confirmation of this should be sent in writing to the worker.
Furthermore, the Court recommends that HSE management should ensure that more comprehensive details of requirements to inform supervisors of return to work dates/times and requirements to produce medical certificates when not rostered for duty, should be made available.
TheCourt so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
31st March, 2008______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.