Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An employee

Public Body

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-00022933-001

30/10/2018

The dispute refers to the alleged failure of the Respondent to fully investigate a complaint made by the Complainant against the senior Manager of her area.

The Complainant’s representative made extensive submissions summarised as follows:

The Complainant has had a long and successful career over 39 years and held a senior role with the Respondent. Since the Autumn of 2016, it is alleged that there was a clear pattern of bullying and intimidating behaviour against her by a Manager Ms M. This involved problems with approving annual leave, which the Manager departed from custom and practice and it is alleged, subjected the complainant to different treatment than her counterparts. The Complainant was subjected to a defamatory email on 6th March 2018 in which she was accused of being ‘AWOL’.   The effect of this resulted in the Complainant being unfit for work for six months.   The Complainant was on sick leave following the receipt of the email and in August 2018, she received an email from her new Line Manager Mr C verifying her Annual Leave/Toil leave for the year April 2017 to 31st March 2018, which vindicated the accuracy of the Complainant’s position. A number of other incidents were outlined, including the Manager’s notification that the temporary contract the Complainant was on for the duration of her Acting assignment was being terminated, without any prior discussion or consultation. On 3rd March 2017 the Complainant had planned to attend a sporting competition in which her son was partaking but the Manager wouldn’t allow her to leave an unplanned meeting to do so. In October 2017 after receiving emails containing unreasonable demands and timeframes, the Complainant met with the two Managers involved Ms M and Mc E and subsequently received an apology from Ms E but not from Ms M who had committed to doing so. In November 2017, the Complainant’s approval for overnight accommodation for two student nurses due to adverse weather conditions was rescinded by Ms M, leading the Complainant to feel belittled and undermined.  

The Complainant made a formal complaint on 11th April 2018 to the Chief Officer and on 5th July 2018 a written complaint was made under the Dignity at Work policy. Mediation was offered but the Complainant sought the withdrawal of the ‘awol’ email and apology for same as a precondition.   A preliminary screening of the complaint was conducted by HR and it was found not to “fall within the scope of the policy”. On 1st October 2018, the Head of Human Resources wrote to the Complainant’s representative offering to have the complaint heard by the Chief Officer. It was decided that as the Chief Officer was well aware of the situation and the matter had been brought to his attention on numerous occasions to no avail, that the only option then for the Complainant was to refer the matter to the WRC.

The Complainant seeks withdrawal of the defamatory email of 6th March accusing her of being AWOL and also a written apology in relation to same. Alternatively, she seeks a time limited independent investigation of her complaint.   She also seeks compensation for the distress caused to her.

The facts of the matter are essentially common case. The new Head of Services (Manager M) was appointed in October 2016. It is a fact that she wrote to the Complainant in March 2017 advising her that she was absent without leave. It is a fact that the Manager was not aware of where the Complainant was nor was she aware of what type of leave she was taking.   In these circumstances it is not unreasonable for the Respondent to suggest that the Complainant was absent without leave.

In July 2018 the Chief Officer received a dignity at work complaint from the Complainant against Manager M. Mediation was offered but a precondition that the email of 6th March 2017 be withdrawn and an apology issued prevented progress on this front.   At the request of Manager M, who had indicated willingness to enter mediation, a preliminary screening of the dignity at work complaint was carried out by HR.   The preliminary screening concluded that the Complainant’s complaint did not meet the requirements set out in the policy. In a detailed response HR concluded that the complaint would be more appropriately handled through the grievance procedure as the issues raised were predominately work related issues.   The Complainant and her union representative did not agree with this conclusion and referred the matter to the WRC.

It is the Respondent’s position that the Complainant’s complaint has been processed in line with policy.   Preliminary screening found it did not meet the criteria to be processed under the dignity at work policy. Mediation was offered and accepted however the Complainant sought to have preconditions on the process.

Irrespective of local processes as part of the Complainant’s terms and conditions of employment in the taking of annual leave is governed by the following:

“All applications for leave are subject to the approval of your line manager and should be made in writing on the approved application form”.

The Respondent is satisfied that the complaint needs to be concluded as per the grievance procedure and is happy to facilitate this process.

The Complainant has a long list of grievances which she and her union representative firmly believe should be processed through the Dignity at Work Policy and Procedure.   The Respondent, having carried out a screening process, found that they were not appropriate to be dealt with under that policy but through the Grievance process. There is therefore an impasse and I find that it is not desirable to force the Complainant and her union representative to go through the grievance procedure if they are refusing to do so. I note the point made by the representative of the Complainant that given the seniority of the Manager M who is the subject of her complaint, that an independent process may be a solution.   I recommend that, in the fairly unique circumstances, the Respondent engages an independent 3rd party to investigate the Complainant’s grievances and complaints, all articulated clearly in the complaint submitted to the Respondent on 5th July 2017. Terms of Reference should be agreed between the parties with an end deadline for the process, say of three months from the date of this recommendation.   In the meantime, I am not making a judgement on the merits of the Complainant’s complaints, as to rule on any one of them might prejudice any outcome from the process.