FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : HERMITAGE CLINIC LIMITED TRADING AS HERMITAGE MEDICAL CLINIC - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY IRISH NURSES AND MIDWIVES ORGANISATION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Dignity at work.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant held the post of Clinical Nurse Manager (I) in the Cath Laboratory since 2009. Difficulties arose between the Claimant and her opposite number in the Cardiology Department which resulted in a formal complaint in writing regarding an allegation of misconduct against the Claimant. The complaint was considered to be serious and an extensive investigation was undertaken and draft findings published. A final report was sent to both parties and efforts were made to bring them together to discuss a method for reaching a resolution, however, the Claimant resigned her post on the 10th December, 2012 and is seeking compensation for the distress caused to her. Management rejects the claim, stating they carried out a fair and impartial investigation under the terms of it's Dignity at Work Policy.
On the 5th December, 2012 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 27th March, 2013.
The Union agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Management failed to conduct a fair and proper investigation into allegations of bullying made against her by not adhering to"The Labour Relations Code of Practice detailing proceduresfor addressing bullying in the workplace"
2. The Union is seeking that all line managers are made aware of their obligations in managing allegations of bullying and maintaining strict confidentiality.
3. The Union is seeking compensation from the Employer for the distress caused to the Claimant.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Management was faced with a difficult and complex investigation that entailed opposing viewpoints underpinned by a poor working relationship between the parties.
2. In order to repair the working relationship between the parties a certain level of willingness to co-operate and commitment is required, this was not forthcoming.
3. The Dignity at Work Investigation Report contained six recommendations, four of them were the responsibility of the Claimant, none of which were acted upon prior to her resignation.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that the Union are no longer seeking a fresh investigation into the Claimant's complaints of bullying and that its claim is confined to seeking compensation for the manner in which the internal investigation was conducted.
The Court finds it regrettable that the Employer did not consent to a Rights Commissioner investigation of this dispute as is required by its own procedures. Nevertheless, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the Court does not see any basis upon which it could recommend the payment of compensation.
Accordingly the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
28th May, 2013______________________
JFChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.