ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00010879

Parties:

Complaint(s):

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 23/03/2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Caroline McEnery

Procedure:

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

Background:

The Complainant has presented this claim for adjudication and is seeking a recommendation of:

• An external Independent investigator to be appointed regarding her grievance.
•  
• Compensation of €15,000

The Complainant started working there on the 18th of September 2006 and continues to work there since the grievance was raised in April 2016.    

Summary of Complainant’s Case:                  

In April 2016 the Complainant was told by the Respondent about complaints the Healthcare assistants had against her.

The Complainant was told by the Respondent that management and the Healthcare assistants had collated issues.

The agenda was to address the complainant’s behaviour and attitude. The Complainant was also informed that the General Manager was aware that the meeting had happened on the 20th of April.

The Complainant was taken aback and it had a profound effect on her. She had a heart attack on the 4th of May 2016.

Whilst in hospital the Complainant spoke to the General Manager on the phone and advised her of her medical condition and that she attributed her heart attack to her work environment and stresses of same.

Following this her Union wrote to the Respondent with her grievance.

A response was received which stated that a meeting took place on April 20th and justified the manner in which the meeting was conducted.

The Union responded to state that they wanted an independent investigation into the events of April 20th 2016 when local management attended and facilitated a meeting solely focused on a discussion of another member of staff.

Further correspondence was sent from the Union on July 25th.

None of the correspondence were responded to.

A number of meetings took place from November 2016. Following investigation, the Complainant was informed in December 2016 that there was no evidence found to support her complaints.

She received correspondence on the 20th of February 2017 that a formal investigation under the Dignity at work policy was to be undertaken.

The union objected to this as they believed that the Complainants grievance of April 2016 would need to be investigated fairly firstly by an independent investigator and not internally.

This was due to the fact that the internal investigation was conducted by a member of management who was aware of the April 2016 meeting with the Health care assistants at the time and the subsequent offer of a further internal investigator to carry out an investigation into the matter.

The Complainant got a list of complaints against her on the 27th of February 2017. This was the first time she got them.

Considerable correspondence was exchanged between the parties from March 2nd 2017 until June 30th 2017.

The issue was referred to the WRC on the 26th of September 2017

The Complainants union are seeking that an external investigator is appointed to conduct an investigation into the meeting of April 20th 2016 and matters that preceded it and flowed from it.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

On the 24th of June 2016 the Respondent wrote to the complainant’s union clarifying that a meeting was held on the 20th of June 2016 between management and healthcare staff at the request of such staff members. The Respondent confirmed to the union the Respondent did not at any time seek to canvass complaints.

The Complainants union wrote to the Respondent seeking an investigation of the alleged inappropriate approach by the Respondent to progress complaints concerning the Complainant.

In December 2016 a meeting was arranged with the Complainant. The Complainants response advised that the union were seeking an external review rather than the grievance progressing through each stage.

The Respondent referred to the provisions of the Grievance Procedure which does not provide for such an external investigation.

On the 29th of December 2016 correspondence issued to the union set out the outcome of the grievance procedure.

The outcome of the grievance was advised and the Complainants union subsequently responded to state that the investigation lacked thoroughness, transparency and objectivity.

Subsequent correspondence ensued and on the 21st of July the Respondent outlined the proposed membership of the investigation team to include trained investigators unrelated to the Services and Staff concerned.

This was refused by the union so it was agreed that the Union and the Respondent Company would meet.

Two further letters were issued by the union to state that an external investigator was necessary.

The Respondent subsequently received correspondence from the WRC Adjudication services advising of a referral of this matter on behalf of the Correspondent.

The Respondent states that the union’s request for Management to effectively set aside the provisions of the nationally agreed Grievance Procedure and had to instead put in place an external investigation of their members grievance is a breach of the agreed procedures and is contrary to their members terms and conditions of employment.

Recommendation:

Section 13 (1) and (2) of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1946 – 2015 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

The matter in dispute is based on the claim that the Respondent did not follow their grievance procedure thereby frustrating the complainant’s attempts to have her grievance addressed.

The Complainants claim centres around a grievance of how she was treated at a staff meeting in April 2016 and how this grievance effects the complaints against her in line with the Dignity and Respect at work policy.

A timeline of nearly 2 years has lapsed since the meeting of April 2016.

My recommendation is that the Complainants grievance be addressed by the internal investigations unit and an independent investigator from this unit commences this grievance promptly to conclude same within three months.

Thereafter once this investigation is concluded the complaints of the dignity and respect policy should commence.

Dated:   27/07/2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Caroline McEnery