ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00011299
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | An employee | A County Council |
Representatives | Jemma Mackey | Paul Murray |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
CA-00015075-001 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing:
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 13 of the IndustrialRelations Acts 1969 following the referral of the complaint/dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint/dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint/dispute.
Background:
The Complainant contends that there was an unreasonable delay in the Respondent’s conduct of an investigation into a bullying and harassment complaint made against him in July 2017. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
On 19th July 2017 the Complainant received a letter from the Respondent inviting him to a disciplinary meeting on 31st July 2017 concerning an alleged complaint made against him on 5th and 6th July 2017 from a work colleague. The Respondent’s own policies and procedures govern the time limits for such matters. These include such undertakings as to deal with complaints promptly and sympathetically, set out a timetable for investigation, set deadlines for responses and the guidelines for appeal process. From the date of that meeting on 31st July 2017, despite several approaches from the Complainant’s union to them, the Respondent failed to produce the final report until 25th January 2019. There was an Adjudication hearing on the delay in producing the report held in April 2018 which was postponed in order to allow the Respondent produce the report. However, again following numerous reminders, the Respondent failed to produce the report for a further 9 months. The Complainant has suffered stress and is deeply upset at the extreme length of time this investigation has taken. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not intend to delay the process unduly. It is accepted that there were delays in the process. However, some explanation for the delays are reasonable in that the Complainant himself was on sick leave for a year from November 2017 to November 2018 during the process. The Investigating Engineer and the Engineer who received the report were also out sick during the time. It is contended that while there were some delays, this does not warrant compensation. |
Recommendation:
Whilst explanations for some of the delays in bringing this matter to a conclusion are plausible there were a number of deficiencies in the Respondent’s handling of this issue. I note the Respondent’s own policy specifically provides that “The investigator/investigation team, once appointed, will set out a timetable for investigation. The time-scale set out will be adhered to as far as is practicable”. The delays between for example, holding the meeting with the Complainant on 31st July 2017 and sending the minutes to him were extraordinary and the whole process took from beginning to end almost two years. I note there was a final appeal regarding the process in June 2019 which did not change the original outcome. I recommend the Respondent write to the Complainant in this instant case confirming that the matter is now closed and that no adverse finding was made against him. I further recommend that in compensation for the inordinate delays in the process, the Respondent offer the Complainant the sum of €9,000 compensation.
Dated: July 29th 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: