ADJ-00018735

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Senior Hospital Employee

A Hospital

Representatives

Fórsa

 IBEC

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00024129-001

14/12/2018

The complainant had a number of serious grievances in particular against two very senior co-workers, arising in one case from allegations he had made against her.

However, these were not dealt with by the respondent in accordance with its own policies.

Her grievance was lodged in May 2018 but for two months the respondent did not respond. This was particularly unacceptable as it took a toll on her health and resulted in a period of work-related stress leave.

Specifically, it did not process her complaints or complete a proper investigation, and such were the flaws in the proposed investigation that she withdrew from it.

Among the reasons was that the investigator indicated that reports of interviews with parties in the investigation would not be shared with her.

She says that the hospital failed in its duty of care to her.

The respondent agreed that the complainant’s grievance would be investigated by an external consultant shortly after receiving it.

The Terms of Reference did include confidentiality provisions which were the reason why material from the investigation could not be shared.

Also, the complainant did not want certain documents shared with other parties to the investigation.

However, the position of the respondent is that it very much wishes to resolve the complainant’s outstanding grievance by an external investigator.

It also notes that there have been some changes in the situation in the hospital which may open up opportunities for amicable resolution of matters.

The respondent is willing to enter into a mediation process to progress matters.

As sometimes may happen in cases under this legislation, it is open to an Adjudicator to explore with the parties how the referral to the WRC might lead to a mutually acceptable way of resolving what brought them to a hearing in the first place.

Things did go unfortunately wrong for various reasons in processing the complainant’s grievances and the respondent may find it helpful to review its protocols for the conduct of investigations to avoid similar difficulties in the future. Certainly, there are aspects of its current practise which appear unorthodox.

Nonetheless both parties are to be commended for the positive attitude they brought to the hearing, which was very focussed on finding a solution to the problems they were facing rather than simply seeking an adjudication of the rights and wrongs of how the matter was handled in the past.

Because such disputes are in any event best resolved in context and at the level of the workplace and with a focus on the future, both parties agreed to enter a facilitated review, the purpose of which would be to consider the content of the complainant’s grievance, as she has a right to a hearing on those points, and then also move to a mutually acceptable resolution for the future.

This is best done with the support of an experienced workplace facilitator who also has a knowledge of investigations and should, on a confidential basis address all outstanding issues raised by the complainant.

I recommend that the parties enter into a confidential, facilitated review of all outstanding issues related to the complainant’s grievances, with a view to achieving an enduring and mutually acceptable resolution.

At their request I have nominated a suitable person who is an experienced workplace facilitator with a knowledge of investigations, and who has been accepted by both parties.