Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Nurse Manager

A Hospital

Representatives

Ciara Galvin SIPTU

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-00018187-001

27/03/2018

The Complainant is a Nurse Manager with the HSE and on the 29th April 2016 he made a complaint to the Respondent under their Dignity at Work Policy, complaining that he was being severely bullied and harassed by a fellow employee.

He says that the complaint has not been investigated and he says that as a result the conditions under which he works have disimproved considerably. He is asking for a recommendation that the Complaint be investigated now, as a matter of urgency, by the Respondent so that he can work in an atmosphere which he expects, will be free from bullying and harassment, in keeping with the terms contained in the Dignity at Work Policy.

He says with this level of delay in addressing his complaints will lead to justice being delayed and as a result, denied.

He says it is clear also from the “ Chronology of File Summary Details” presented that nothing was done about the complaint for the six months immediately following the submission of the complaint.

The above is, in essence, the Complainant’s case, presented at the hearing. At the Hearing his union representatives, on his behalf raised the claim of compensation also, so that the Complainant could be compensated by the HSE for the manner in which they had conducted their business in this case and the difficult situation that this left the Complainant in for so long. They presented precedent for such compensation, in Recommendations from a Rights Commissioner and the Labour Court:

The Rights Commissioner Recommendation was in relation to A Worker v HSE, Ref r – 134377 – ir – 13 /JT. This awarded compensation to the Complainant for delay in processing his complaint.

The Labour Court   Recommendation – LCR 221263 awarded extra compensation to a Complainant for the delay in processing his complaint, and was [a Worker v the HSE].

The Responded was represented, at the hearing, by 2 Employee Relations Managers and another officer.

They submitted that they had completed their roles in the investigation process and could not go beyond this point. Their role in this was to vet the complaint to check that it fell within the terms of the Dignity at Work Policy. They said that they had completed this within a few days. That the case would then be passed to a Commissioner, a manager within the HSE system, whose role it is to:

(a)    Pass the case to the designated Investigation body within the HSE and

(b)    Agree the Terms of Reference between the Complainant and the Respondent (the person against whom the complaint is made).

When the HSE submission was made to the WRC a “Chronology of File Summary details” was also submitted.

The HSE representatives at the hearing were not defending the delay in the processing of the complaint. They were clearly frustrated by the delay and said so.

I believe that it is a shocking indictment of the respondent that such Complaints are dealt with in such a haphazard and laborious manner.

I am therefore recommending that:

(a)    A new, updated Complaint be submitted to the Respondent by the Complainant, that will include further complaints caused by the delay in bringing this matter to conclusion.

(b)    That the preliminaries be completed within 3 days of receiving this Complaint.

(c)     That the complaint be then submitted immediately to the Commissioner and that the entire process, including a report to the Complainant is completed by the 30th September 2018.

(d)    In the event that the deadline is not met, that the Commissioner, who is critical to the process, attends a reconvened Hearing to explain why the deadline is not met, present why this is so and what he intends to do to rectify this.

(e)    I recommend that the Respondent streamline its procedures for investigation of its internal complaints on these issues, ruling out the multiplicity of players involved and appointing an overall responsible manager.

I recommend that the above recommendations be fully implemented and that for the unreasonable delay in processing his complaint, the Complainant be paid €5,000 in compensation.