Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Health Service Provider

Representatives

Joe Hoolan Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation

HR Specialist

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-00032052-001

04/11/2019

In her complaint form the complainant asserted that when she lodged a complaint with the respondent against her line manager there ensued an inexcusable delay culminating in a protracted process lasting 14 months. She alleges that this caused her stress and anxiety and when she sought to pursue a grievance about the respondent’s delay in processing her complaint , the respondent refused to process her complaint. The complainant was seeking an apology from the respondent and compensation for “the breach of trust, the additional stress and anxiety which the delay in dealing with the grievance caused, to the value of €10,000 as full and final settlement”.

The complainant is a senior nurse manager with over 40 years’ experience. She made the complaint against her line Manager on the 22nd. March 2018.Details of the complaint were submitted at the hearing – the complainant was aggrieved with the behaviour of her line manager towards her and complained of excessive workloads by virtue of having to cover vacant posts. She also complained about a failed mediation process that she described as causing her great distress .The union set out a chronology of the various meetings and exchanges that took place in processing the grievance and it was contended that it was June 2019 before the grievance was concluded .It was advanced that on the 24th.Sept. 2018 the Occupational Health Consultant wrote to the claimant’s line manager advising that the Dept. was “ assisting her through a very difficult industrial relations process” .”In error the letter was forwarded to the respondent in the grievance process”. It was submitted that at one point the employer was proposing to hold a grievance meeting between the complainant and her line manager and were advised by the INMO that this was inappropriate and did not comply with the grievance procedure. On the 23rd.Sept. 2019 the complainant wrote to the respondent complaining about the delay and advising that she suffered sick leave and stress leave “due to the issues she was facing in the workplace and that her grievance was not conducted in a reasonable manner as set out in the grievance procedure”.

The union set out a calendar of the timelines charting the processing of the grievance from its original submission in March 2018 to its conclusion in June 2019 and invoked the timelines set out in the respondent’s grievance procedure. It was submitted that the respondent had repeatedly   failed to meet the time limits , that this had a negative effect on the health of the complainant and that as a result she suffered several episodes of stress and sick leave .It was submitted that the respondent compounded matters in refusing to hear the claimant’s grievance about the delay and directing that the matter be referred to a third party. The union invoked the provisions of AD1135 in support of their contention that the respondent pay compensation to the claimant.

It was submitted that managers still refused to accept that they were bound by the time lines set out in the grievance procedure.

The respondent set out a chronology of the correspondence , meetings and exchanges between the parties in the processing of the claimant’s initial grievance .It was submitted that the initial delay arose because of the absence on leave of the complainant and her line manager .It was submitted that at the Stage 2 hearing , the respondents representative acknowledged the delay in the processing of the grievance .The employer’s representative catalogued the ensuing exchanges and advised that a delay in May 2019 arose because of the absence of the line manager’s INMO representative owing to other commitments including the nurses national dispute. The respondent acknowledged that the grievance was not processed in accordance with the time frames set out in the grievance procedure but submitted that there were factors that delayed the process that were outside the control of the respondent including the scheduling of dates for hearings , the absence of key managers to hear the case at different stages and the time given to both parties to review and feedback on documents and reports issued during the process. The respondent put on record “ that there was an unacceptable delay in the handling of the grievance and would like to take this opportunity to apologise to “ the complainant.

I have reviewed the evidence presented at the hearing and noted the respective position of the parties. I note that the respondent has acknowledged their failure to observe the timelines set out in their own procedures and that the respondent has apologised to the complainant. I accept the respondent’s contention that some factors that influenced the delay in processing the claimant’s grievance were outside the control of the respondent.

I find that no satisfactory explanation was advanced by the respondent for their failure to process the claimant’s second grievance which was based on the delay in the processing of her grievance. I further find that no evidence was advanced to demonstrate compliance with the respondent’s robust policy on “Prevention and Management of Stress in the Workplace 2018” in circumstances where the respondent was put on notice on a number of occasions by the union of the extent to which the claimant was stressed and distressed by her working environment and in circumstances where the claimant’s distress was evidently visible at the various meetings held with her while her grievance was being processed. For the foregoing reasons I find that compensation is warranted and recommend in full and final settlement of this dispute that the respondent make a compensatory payment of €8,000 to the claimant.