FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : HSE WEST MAYO PCCC - AND - IRISH NURSES AND MIDWIVES ORGAINISATION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No: r-041964-ir-06/POB
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns an appeal by the Union of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No: r-041964-ir-06/POB. The issue concerns a staff nurse, employed by the HSE West who had made allegations of bullying which the Union claims were not adequately investigated by management.
The dispute was not resolved at local level and was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. His Recommendation issued on the 29th August, 2008
and recommended that the worker be offered an employee assistance programme if required and that Management would set up a framework to improve working relationships within the organisation. The Rights Commissioner also awarded €10,000 in compensation for the inordinate length of time it took Management to deal with the complaints and the increased stress suffered by the worker as a result.
On the 9th October, 2008, the Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 9th March 2010 in Castlebar.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 Management failed in its duty of care towards the worker when it did not conduct its investigation in an acceptable timeframe. The subsequent anxiety and stress suffered by the worker for a period in excess of five years requires an enhanced quantum of compensation.
2 The worker made the complaint of bullying in 2003. She was called to give evidence in another investigation but was not afforded an investigation into her own complaint at that time. When an investigation did eventually take place the alleged perpetrator would not comply on the basis of having already taken part in the initial investigation. None of these delays are the responsibility of the worker and it is unacceptable that she has suffered to such an extent during this process.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1Managment have made every effort to deal with the allegations through an investigative process. The delays in the process were outside of it's control and it is inappropriate that the Union is seeking enhanced compensation as a result of the process timeframe.
2 There are now procedures in place that promote improved working relationships within the organisation and a new Director has been appointed to address issues as they arise which will create a positive working environment going forward.
DECISION:
The matter before the Court concerns an appeal by the worker of a Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation, which awarded her the sum of €10,000 in compensation for the employer’s alleged failure to investigate an allegation of bullying. The only aspect of the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation which was appealed was the quantum of the award.
The Court notes that all other aspects of the Recommendation have been complied with and the only outstanding matter is the level of compensation. The employer did not appeal the Recommendation.
Having considered the oral and written submission made by both parties, the Court concurs with the findings of the Rights Commissioner and cannot finds grounds to increase the award of compensation made. Therefore the Court upholds the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation and the appeal fails.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
29th March 2010______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.