Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

Healthcare Provider

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-00015664-001

8/Nov/20178/Nov/2017

The Worker works for a healthcare provider.

This dispute was previously the subject of an Adjudication Hearing on the 27th July 2017 after which the Adjudication Officer recommended that the matter be dealt with locally under Stage 4 of the Respondent’s Grievance procedure. This has been completed and involved a comprehensive investigation being carried out by external consultants, summarised in a final report.

The confidential report, issued on the 6th November 2017, reported on the subject matter of the complainant’s grievance and included a summary of interviews held with various individuals, documentation reviewed and its analysis and findings.

On the 8th November 2017, the Worker informed the then HR Manager that as she considered the issues to be still in dispute she was referring her complaint back to the Workplace Relations Commission.

A Hearing took place on the 4th April 2018.

The Worker provided a summary of the circumstances that led to the original complaint being filed with the WRC. These included her belief that she was wrongly accused of providing the CEO with incorrect data and when she defended herself she was moved to the Quality department with extra workload. Also, a damaging email was placed on her personnel file (which was subsequently removed). The Worker also contends that the role she performs should be upgraded from Clerical Grade IV to Clerical Grade VI.

In relation to the investigation itself (under Stage 4 of the Respondent’s Grievance procedures) she stated that at the meetings held between the Investigator and other interviewees (her work colleagues who included the CEO, IT Department personnel, the PA to the CEO and the Deputy CEO), “a considerable amount of time was spent discussing my character in a derogatory fashion with no documentary evidence to back it up”. She added that the ‘Investigation Terms of Reference’ stated that “The Investigator may also arrange further meetings with any such other employee as she deems necessary and any statements taken from such other employees and/or minutes of meetings with them will be circulated to the complainant and the respondent for their comments”. The Worker alleges that minutes of these meetings were not provided to her prior to the final report being issued.

The Worker believes that the meetings with her colleagues focussed on her character and not the issues connected to her original complaint and this has caused her hurt, has further brought her character into disrepute and has the effect of further damaging her reputation within the hospital.

She also drew attention to other issues raised in the report such as her working hours and annual leave arrangements, the fact that she has not applied for other positions advertised, her work performance and her being wrongly accused of providing the CEO with inaccurate information. She stated that these are either irrelevant to her grievance (and should not have been included in the report) or are incorrect.

The Respondent broadly agrees with the conclusions reached by the external investigator. She stated that the Worker is a valued staff member but that her role is appropriately graded as Clerical Grade IV.

The issues in dispute in this case go back to 2014. They have been examined locally, were the subject of a previous WRC Adjudication hearing and an investigation completed by external consultants (approved by the complainant in advance), resulting in a comprehensive report.

The Worker continues to perform her role, based in the Quality department, since her grievance originated in 2014. The Adjudication Officer believes that the ability, performance and commitment of the Worker are not in question, but are held in high regard by the Respondent.   However, the issues at the heart of this complaint remain unresolved after four years.

The Worker’s grievances have been the subject of an external investigation by consultants (whose report ran to 63 pages), which did not provide the Worker with the outcome she desired, but only served to deepen her grievance based on its recommendations and how aspects of the investigation were carried out.

The external investigator’s report refers (in pages 55 to 62) to the Worker’s grievance in relation to her pay grade. This section includes a detailed analysis of the Worker’s role and states the Deputy CEO’s view that “to qualify for an upgrade there must be additional work, you must have a track record of delivering and your role must have changed significantly”.

The report states that the issue of the grading of the Information Officer – Clerical Grade IV role carried out by the complainant, was reviewed by the Employment Control Committee at a meeting on the 22nd June 2016 and an upgrade of the Information Officer post was not approved.

In her findings, the investigator states that “on the totality of the evidence” there is no basis for this aspect of the grievance. The review and findings include references to the Worker’s flexible working arrangements and the fact that the Worker did not apply for other Grade V jobs advertised, facts that appear to have been considered “on the totality of the evidence”. I agree with the Worker in that I don’t believe these issues to be relevant to a review of this aspect of the worker’s grievance.

I recommend that the role of Information Officer performed by the Worker be reviewed again by the Employment Control Committee (the last review was two years ago, in June 2016) or any other suitable forum to examine if the duties and responsibilities carried out by the worker might reasonably satisfy the criteria set out by the Deputy CEO (see above), while also taking full account of the background to the role and the current duties and responsibilities of the jobholder, specifically to examine if there is justification to upgrade the role to Clerical Grade 5.