FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : HSE SOUTH EAST - AND - A GROUP OF WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY PNA) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Alleged Bullying Complaint
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns a claim by the Union that a number of its members have experienced bullying in their present roles and that the Employer did not follow appropriate procedures. The Workers are employed as Clinical Nurse Specialists in the Health Service Executive South. The Union contends that the Workers concerned were regularly undermined and denied the recognition their grade merited. It is the Union's position that the agreed procedures laid out in the Dignity at Work document should be used to address the Workers complaints. The HSE South argues that no complaint under the nationally agreed policy of Dignity at Work was instigated by the Union or any of its members and that the claim now before the Labour Court is inappropriate.
The Union referred its case to the Labour Court on 4th September, 2009, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Worker agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 24th June, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The employer has blatantly ignored agreed procedures. The policy of Dignity at Work places a particular responsibility on Supervisors and Managers to implement this policy. In this case it is clear the Employer completely failed in its responsibility under the policy.
2 The Employer acted with total disregard for the welfare of its staff. It has failed in its duty of care. It has ignored medical evidence provided by the workers in relation to the affects of bullying on their health.
3 There can be no justification for the Employers failure to act in accordance with agreed policy and in failing to attend the Labour Relations Commission when requested.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The issues at the centre of this case are issues regarding the development of the Clinical Nurse Specialists role. These are not issues that are appropriate to the Dignity at Work policy. They are issues that can be progressed through the Grievance Procedure in the first instance and then in the industrial relations machinery if needs be.
2 If there has been incidences that relate to the Dignity at Work policy, why has this policy not been instigated by the Union or its members? The HSE takes a very serious view on all complaints of bullying or harassment.
3 The HSE cannot apply the Dignity at Work Policy and deal with allegations of bullying when it is not informed of alleged bullying through the step by step process contained in the policy
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the positions of both parties as expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court is of the view that the employer’s offer of mediation is the most appropriate course of action to take in these circumstances. The Union on behalf of the claimants agreed to this offer but sought to have the matters dealt with as expeditiously as possible.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the services of a skilled and experienced mediator should be engaged in to address and resolve the difficulties outlined to the Court. The parties should agree the terms of reference and if the process is not completed after three months it should be reviewed to ensure it is meeting its target.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
12th July, 2010______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.