Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Staff Nurse

A Health Care Provider

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Dispute seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00024077-001

13/12/2018

The worker was employed by the employer as a Staff Nurse from July 2005 until her retirement on ill health grounds in July 2018. The dispute relates to grievances which the worker alleges were not dealt with in a satisfactory manner by the employer.

Both parties furnished written submissions at the adjudication hearing. Further information was requested. The date of receipt of the last supplemental submission was on 30th July 2019.

The worker stated that she raised a number of issues of concern to her Line Manager in July 2017 relating to clinical practices and patient care within the organisation. The worker stated that she also raised issues of concern in relation to her own conditions of employment and assignment to certain areas within the hospital. The worker stated that the response of management was inadequate and did not address her concerns. The worker stated that she then sought to invoke the employer’s grievance procedures and notified this to the employer through her Trade Union by letter dated 27th July 2017. The worker stated that there was no response to this request and the matter was not dealt with until almost a year later. The worker outlined that by the time an investigation did take place in October 2018, she had already retired on the grounds of ill health. The worker is also dissatisfied in relation to the delays in processing applications relating to Temporary Rehabilitation Remuneration (TRR) and Critical Illness Protocol (CIP) prior to her retirement.

The employer stated that all issues raised by the worker on 13th July 2017 were comprehensively dealt with by the complainant’s Line Manager in a formal response dated 21st July 2017. The employer stated that in August 2018, the worker’s Trade Union sought to appeal the Line Manager’s findings. As issues of patient care and medical practices were raised in the worker’s grievance, the Group Human Resources Manager convened a meeting and conducted a thorough investigation into all matters raised by the worker and also gave consideration to new issues raised by her. This meeting was arranged even though the worker had retired and was no longer employed by the organisation.

The employer contends that it made every effort to address the concerns of the worker throughout the process and provided comprehensive and objective responses to all issues that were raised by her.

In relation to TRR, the employer does not accept that there were delays in this process. The employer stated that the TRR application was made on 5th December 2017 and was signed off by local management on 20th December 2017 before being approved by the HR Department on 8th January 2018. In relation to the application for CIP, the employer does not accept that there were deficiencies on its part in relation to that process. The employer stated that there were a number of procedural requirements involved and that when the application was approved on appeal, the worker received retrospective payment of all monies due to her.

In all of the circumstances of the dispute, the employer contends that the worker’s complaint is without merit and should be dismissed.

I have reviewed the initial submissions of both parties and the supplemental documents submitted after the adjudication hearing had concluded.

In relation to the application for TRR, I do not find that there was a delay of any significance in that process. In relation to the application for CIP, there appears to have been a rigorous application and appeals process involved but once the claim was awarded, the worker, who was in receipt of TRR, was retrospectively paid her entitlements in respect of CIP. In those circumstances, I do not find that the worker should receive compensation as a result of this issue.

In relation to the grievance letter of 27th July 2017, the employer acknowledged that it was not responded to and that no investigation into the grievances took place until a meeting was convened on 18th October 2018 following further requests by the worker’s Trade Union. The employer contends that the Trade Union is equally responsible for this delay as it did not follow up on the grievance for approximately one year. I do not accept this argument and find that the responsibility rested with the employer to process the grievance, which it did not do.

I note that by October 2018, the worker had retired on the grounds of ill health and while I accept that the Group Human Resource Manager carried out a thorough investigation at that time, the fact remains that the employer did not process the workers grievance, within a reasonable period of time after it was submitted, as it should have done.

Given that the worker has now retired on the grounds of ill health, I am of the view that the appropriate redress is an award of compensation.

In all of the circumstances of this dispute, I recommend that the employer pay the worker €5,000 in compensation.

Grievance Procedures