Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

Health Service Provider

Representatives

Richy Carrothers IMPACT Trade Union

HR Officer

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-00014817-001

6/Oct/2017

The claimant has been employed by the respondent since the year 2000 and complains in her complaint form that she submitted a complaint under the respondent’s Dignity at Work policy in October 2016 and that an investigation under that policy still had not commenced. She contended that the terms of reference and investigation team had been agreed upon by her union months ago – she submitted that the respondent had failed to process her complaint in a timely manner, had failed to protect her dignity at work during the process, that they had continued to expose her to unacceptable behaviours and had failed to put in protective measures. She submitted that the respondent’s inaction breached her dignity and caused severe stress and health problems.

The union set out a chronology of the claimant’s efforts to have her complaints against her line manager investigated and of the exchanges with the respondent on the matter - the respondent was first made aware of the complaints in March 2016 and she submitted a formal complaint under the Dignity at Work policy in Oct. 2016. The Dignity at Work policy was negotiated and agreed between the respondent and the unions representing their employees.

It was submitted that the claimant had still not been interviewed in accordance with the formal investigation process. A delay arose on the matter of agreement on terms of reference and a further delay ensued in relation to the Investigators – ultimately agreement was reached on the 3rd May 2017. The respondent contacted the union on the 1st June 2017 enquiring if the union were in agreement to proceed with the investigation and the union reiterated they were happy to proceed. Delays persisted over the summer period and the complaint was referred to the WRC in October 2016. A number of confirmations that the investigation had commenced were received from management following the WRC referral.

It was submitted that despite representations from the union, the respondent had failed to put in protective measures on a without prejudice basis – she reported numerous continued interactions with her line manager which she alleged continued to breach her dignity at work.

It was submitted that the respondent had blatantly ignored their own dignity at work policy and that justice delayed was justice denied.

The union sought an apology from the union for the delay, a commitment to enter a written agreement with the union on the protective measures necessary to safe guard the claimant – with built in sanctions for failure to adhere to the terms of any such agreement - a commitment to fund further counselling for the claimant   to assist her in dealing with the stress arising from the delay in the investigation and compensation for the inordinate delay in processing the claimant’s complaint.

The respondent charted the chronology of the exchanges with the claimant and the union since her complaint was initially received on the 20th Sept. 2016. A further written complaint was lodged on the 14th Oct. 2016 and the complaint was screened in accordance with the dignity at work policy on the 18th Oct. 2016. Mediation was offered as a first line response. The line manager submitted his written response to the complaint on the 17th Nov 2016 and a request for an “investigation form“ was lodged with HR on the 20th Dec 2016. It was submitted that the claimant was referred to Occupational Heath from a support and welfare point of view. There was further engagement on terms of reference and investigators were appointed on the 16th March 2017. The respondent’s representative indicated that the investigation team changed owing to an objection from one party and the new team were advised to proceed on the 16th June 2017. The investigation team then stated that the investigation would recommence at the end of July 2017 and approval was granted to modify the terms of reference to reflect this. The commissioning manager was transferred to Dublin in August 2017 and final clarity was obtained on the 4th Oct. 2017. An update was sought from HR on the 13th Feb. 2018 and it was advised that the investigation team had met on 3 occasions, had received all files and had put in place an interview plan. The employer considers that this investigation is up and running and that the investigation is ongoing”.

I have reviewed the evidence presented at the hearing and noted the respective position of the parties. I have also noted the compelling testimony by the claimant of the distress arising from the delays in the processing of her complaint and of her own efforts to secure appropriate treatment and counselling in response to these pressures.

While I acknowledge that the respondent has advanced an explanation in part for some of the delays in the processing of the claimant’s complaint, I must conclude that the 18 month delay that has arisen since the complaint was first screened is inexcusable. The delay is clearly in breach of the policy objective which requires that complaints are dealt with ”expeditiously and with minimum distress for the parties involved”.

I recommend in full and final settlement of this dispute that on a without prejudice basis

a)       the respondent apologise to the claimant for the delay in processing her complaint

b)      the respondent enters into a written agreement with the claimant’s union setting out the protective measures that will be put in place to safeguard the safety, health and welfare of the claimant

c)       the respondent agrees to fund counselling for the claimant over the next 3 months

d)      the respondent pay the claimant €7,500 compensation for the distress arising from the delays in the processing of her complaint and

e)      the respondent undertakes to conclude this investigation within 2 months of the date of this recommendation.