ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00000554

Complaint(s)/Dispute(s) for Resolution:

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 24/02/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Joe Donnelly

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

Issues arose following the appointment of a new School Principal in September 2011. In September 2012 and March 2013 the complainant furnished the Board of Management with details of the complaint.

The complainant was on sick leave from March to November 2013 due to workplace stress. No progress had taken place with regard to her complaint and she invoked Stage 4 of the Bullying / Harassment Policy in an attempt to move things forward.

The Board of Management resigned in August 2013 and was replaced by a single manager. Assurances were given to the complainant that her issues would be investigated. As a result of these assurances the Occupational Health advisors assessed the complainant as fit to return to work in November 2013. The manager resigned shortly afterwards and a new manager was appointed. Despite ongoing correspondence from the Complainant no formal investigation or resolution of the complaints took place.

The respondent failed in their duty of care to the complainant.

The complainant suffered significant financial loss as a result of her eight month absence from work and other related costs. These relate to loss of income from her position as a Special Needs Assistant and separately as School Secretary.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

The complainant lodged a complaint of bullying and harassment against the then School Principal in April 2013 and formalised it some weeks later.

The Board of Management of the school resigned in August 2013. A single manager was appointed and he met both parties in an attempt to resolve matters. The Principal was represented by the INTO and that union wrote to the manager raising issues regarding the investigative process.

The manager himself resigned in December 2013 and was replaced later that month by a new single manager. In January 2014 the Principal went absent on sick leave and the new manager was therefore unable to progress the investigation. The Principal did not return from sick leave and ultimately resigned with effect from the end of the 2013/2014 school year.

The complainant was not obliged to work with the Principal from January 2014 onwards. The inability of the manager to conclude the investigation arose from circumstances outside of his control and the complainant was advised of same in July 2014.

Decision:

Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

Issues for Decision:

N/A

Legislation involved and requirements of legislation:

N/A

Decision:

The Board of Management of a National School is comprised of local lay people giving up of their time and effort on a voluntary basis. It is obvious that the Board of this particular school found themselves dealing with a significant number of issues (including those of the complainant) and felt themselves overwhelmed to the extent that they resigned in August 2013. On the other hand the complainant is entitled to work in a safe working environment and to be able to invoke the relevant policies and procedures should she believe that her rights in this regard are not being upheld.

The further complications arising from the short tenure of office of the first single manager and the departure on sick leave of the Principal are explanations as to why the complainant’s issues remained unaddressed. But this meant that her rights to a timely and fair investigation of her complaints as outlined in the Bullying / Harassment Policy were set aside.

The Dept. of Education and Skills referred the complainant to Medmark, an Occupational Health consultancy. Their report stated that the complainant’s medical condition related to work difficulties and when she was finally certified as being fit to return to work in November 2013 it was on the basis that these issues were about to be addressed. Nothing happened but then in January the Principal went on sick leave from which she did not return and the respondent argued that this ultimately resolved the issue. No formal process has taken place since then and there has been no official closure to the issues raised by the complainant.

I note that the Department paid for a number of counselling sessions for the complainant. The complainant states that there were extra costs associated with these.

In the light of the above and taking into consideration the points put forward by both sides I recommend that the respondent pay the complainant compensation to the amount of €8,500 for the defects in relation to the implementation of the Bullying / Harassment Policy and the consequences arising from same.             

Dated:  8th April 2016