Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Nurse

A Charity

Representatives

Mary Fogarty INMO

Scott Jevons IBEC

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-00018771-001

27/04/2018

The Complainant lodged a bullying complaint and claimed the delay in the investigation caused her stress, loss of income and medical expenses and she sought recovery of costs and compensation for the delay.

The Complainant is a Registered Nurse who commenced employment with the Respondent in May 2016.

In October 2016 the Complainant was the subject of a number of work related incidents but did not make any formal complaint.

In January 2017 the Complainat was assigned to the place of work where she had to work with the alleged instigator of the incidents and in March 2017 she was informed she was being moved from day services duty which would have caused her major personal issues and would have led to her resignation but for the intervention of the INMO who did establish that there was a vacancy on days and that matter was resolved.

The Complainant submitted a formal complaint on January 26th, 2017 and the complaint was left in suspense for 11 months and the investigation report has not yet been issued.

The Respondents policy stated that a preliminary screening exercise would take place within 7 days and the formal investigation terms stated the investigation should be complete by February 2nd, 2018.

From April 2017 he Complainant was invited to a normal of informal meetings but nothing happened.

In December 2017 the Complainant was notified that an investigation would take place of her complaint but that it would be held along with another complaint by a second person.

The Complainant is seeking reinstatement of wages and sick leave days lost, recovery of medical expenses and compensation of 15,000 Euros.

The Respondent denies any wrongdoing in the investigation process and that any delays were due to either the Complainant being out sick or the alleged perpetrator being absent from work for prolonged periods.

The Complainant lodged a complaint in January 26th 2017.

The Complainant went sick from February 2nd 2017 to April 17th 2017.

The alleged perpetrator was absent from work on two occasions in 2017 for a total period of nearly seven months.

The Respondent attempted to set up formal meetings with the parties but the alleged perpetrator did not attend.

Terms of reference were formally issued in December 2017.

The alleged perpetrator, on the instructions of her Union, refused to meet in January or February 2018 until a number of her queries were formally answered.

The alleged perpetrator then went sick for two more months.

In May 2018 the alleged perpetrator returned to work but could not meet until the end of May until her Union Rep was available. The alleged perpetrator was placed on paid suspension/admin leave in Mid-May leave pending the investigation.

In July 2018 the alleged perpetrator was met twice.

There was a delay in agreeing the minutes of these meetings until the alleged perpetrators Union representative returned from vacation.

The Respondent did not delay the process but any delays were due to sickness, unwillingness to attend meetings by the parties , Union questions, Union Representatives being unavailable and the Respondents desire to conduct a fair and impartial professional and thorough investigation.

The Complainat has sought the return of any pay lost due to the delay in the investigation process, the deletion of any sick days in that time period from her sick calculations in the Sick Pay scheme and 15,000 Euros Compensation.

It is obvious from the submissions that this investigation process has taken an extensive amount of time and has caused the Complainant some distress. However, in evaluating her claims the actions of the Respondent have to be evaluated from both the facts of the availability of people critical to the investigation and from the perspective of what a reasonable employer would or could have done in the circumstances to ensure fair process and right of representation. The process was delayed for almost 9 months by the absences of one or the other people critical to the investigation. Other delays were caused by legitimate questions being asked by the alleged perpetrator and by the non-availability of the alleged perpetrators Union Representative. Practically all these matters were outside the control of the Respondent. However, the Respondent does seem to have been very slow to comply with its own procedures re time-limits and to take the matters at a much faster pace when people were available.

In summary, I recommend that due to these delays, the Complainat be paid any loss of income attributable to her being on sick leave since she lodged the complaint and that all sick leave since she lodged the complaint be eliminated from her Sick Leave allowance for the purpose of the Sick Pay Scheme. As the Complainant has not suffered any further income loss arising from the delay I see no rationale industrial relations reason to add any further recommendation of compensation for the Complainant.

Loss of Income