FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HSE DUBLIN NORTH EAST - AND - 4 WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH NURSES ORGANISATION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Compensation, return to Meath PCCC
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns four former employees of the HSE North East who were employed as Public Health Nurses in Meath Community Service (Meath PCCC). The Union's claim concerns alleged bullying by the a member of management (the Manager) and also the failure of the HSE to deal with the workers' concerns. The Union is seeking (1) compensation of €50,000 each for the four workers for the emotional stress suffered and (2) the option of returning to Meath PCCC. The dispute was the subject of internal investigations, and a third party Review which issued in September, 2007. The Union claims that the Review supports its case. The Union's main allegation is that during the period 2004-2006 the four workers were subjected to continuous bullying and harassment by the Manager, which included in the case of three of them a referral to the Fitness to Practice Committee of an Bord Altranais. Whilst the HSE accepts that there were problems it does not agree with the Union's allegations, and claims that it made numerous efforts to deal with the situation, something that the Union has failed to acknowledge. It also maintains that the Manager had genuine concerns in relation to the claimants' behaviour and that she denies all allegations of bullying.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commissions and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 25th May, 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2nd July, 2009. The following is the Court's recommendation:
RECOMMENDATION:
This case has come before the Court against the background of serious and persistent complaints of bullying and harassment of nursing staff by a member of management. That background also includes a particularly grave allegation of vindictive behaviour directed against three nurses involving the reference of an apparently groundless complaint against them to the Fitness to Practice Committee of An Bord Altranais. The underlying situation has been the subject of earlier references to the Rights Commissioner service of the LRC, references to this Court and a number of independently commissioned investigations. Yet, it appears that no final or definitive solutions have emerged.
The veracity of what is alleged by the Union is not fully accepted by management. Moreover, the Court was told that the member of management against whom they were made vigorously disputes their validity.
It appears to the Court from all of the surrounding circumstances disclosed in the course of the hearing, and from the persistence and tenacity with which these complaints have been pursued, that a serious situation existed involving the professional and inter-personal relationships between staff involved in delivering a key service. It is equally clear that, for whatever reason, senior management did not take the type of effective and decisive action to deal with the situation that would normally be expected in these circumstances.
It is noted, however, that three of the claimants have since resigned from the employment and the fourth claimant has accepted a permanent transfer to another location. It is further noted that in a letter dated 24th October 2008, written in relation to the claims now under investigation, the Local Health Manager expressed his regret at the events giving rise to these claims. In the Court's view it is regrettable that, in all the circumstances, the expression of regret was not put in the form of a more fulsome apology. On that point the Court recommends that the HSE should again consider its position in that regard, and that each claimant should receive an appropriate and fulsome apology, expressing genuine regret, from the highest level possible within the HSE.
Having fully considered the matter, and having set out its views in the preceding paragraphs of this Recommendation, the Court does not believe that any useful purpose would be served, at this juncture, by embarking on a further investigation of past events for the purpose of allocating blame for what has occurred. However, in the interest of fairness, a further gesture is required of management in order to bring finality to this episode.
It is noted that at conciliation management offered each of the Claimants a payment of €5,000 in settlement of their claim. The Court recommends that this offer be increased to €15,000 in the case of each Claimant and that it be accepted in full and final settlement of the dispute.
The Court notes that the Union is now claiming that each of the Claimants should be offered the opportunity to return to the service in which they were originally employed. The Court does not consider it practicable to recommend that the Claimants who resigned be provided with an automatic route back into their previous areas of employment, but they are naturally free to apply for any positions available. Any such application should be treated on its merits, whilst keeping in mind the reasons for the applicant's previous departure
In the case of the Claimant who transferred to another service, the HSE should make every possible effort to accommodate her desire to return to her original placement.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
15th July, 2009______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.