ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00002803
Complaint(s)/Dispute(s) for Resolution:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00003879-001 | 15/04/2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 22/08/2016
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer O'Shea
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 [and/or Section 8(1B) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, and/or Section 9 of the Protection of Employees (Employers’ Insolvency) Act, 1984, and/or Section 79 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998, and/or Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000] 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).
Attendance at Hearing
By | Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | A Worker | Health Sector Employer |
Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:
My employer, the HSE has failed to adhere to its own procedures in the investigation of a complaint made by against my manager/Director of Service. Undue delay of the report (22 months) Undue delay of each stage. Not kept informed at each stage. Not having sight of Director of Counsellings or the five witnesses interview transcripts, or any correspondence relating to same. Therefore no opportunity to address or challenge what was contained there. In summary the report seems to me to be flawed and highlights serious failures in the manner in which the complaint has been dealt with. The process has not been fair or transparent. I am seeking the intervention of the WRC to adjudicate on complaint. I reserve the right to introduce any subsequent issues and supporting evidence in order to advance my complaint. |
The claimant commenced employment with the respondent in 2004 and retired from the service in the last few months. She had submitted a complaint under the respondent’s Dignity at Work policy and was aggrieved with what the union described as the respondent’s failure to comply with the policy in terms of timelines and the nature of the investigation. It was asserted that the respondent had failed in their duty of care to the claimant and had failed to properly manage the processing of the complaint. It was submitted that the delay prevented the claimant from returning to work in her contracted post, that it impacted on her interim role, caused her considerable distress and undermined her professional confidence.
Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:
The respondent acknowledged that they had failed to meet the timelines provided for in their own policies and accepted that their deficits in the management of the complaint had caused the claimant considerable distress.
RECOMMENDATION
Having reviewed the evidence presented at the hearing I am satisfied that the complaint is well founded – I recommend in full and final settlement of this dispute that the respondent issue a written apology to the claimant in which their deficits in the processing of the complaints and the resultant distress for the claimant are acknowledged. I further recommend that as part of the settlement the respondent pay the claimant a compensatory sum of €5,000 for the distress caused to her within 4 weeks of the date of this recommendation.
Dated: 7th November 2016