Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Staff Nurse

A Health Care Service Provider

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-00028355-001

13/05/2019

The Complainant, a nurse with over 35 years of experience was criticised by her line manager who told her that several of her colleagues had raised concerns over her poor interpersonal manner with them. The Complainant sought details of these criticisms and asked that those who made them be identified. The director of nursing refused to disclose these details and has not since. A grievance hearing outcome, which favoured the Complainant, was not given effect to by the Respondent.

The Complainant is a nurse for over 35 years.

On 5 March 2018, a director of nursing informed the Complainant that a number of her colleagues had made negative comments about her manner towards them at work but when asked for details of the criticisms, the director would provide neither the identity of the persons who had made the comments or particulars of the alleged complaints. The Complainant brought a Stage 1 grievance application which was heard on 24 July 2018. The recommendation (dated 27 August 2018) was a finding that was that while the Director of Nursing had acted in good faith in attempting to impart negative feedback to the Complainant in an informal manner, because the Complainant wished to raise a formal grievance into the matter, she was entitled to be informed of the names and details of those who had made complaints. Following the grievance outcome, the director of nursing was requested by those who had made comments that they had not wished the comments to be relayed to the Complainant, nor did they wish their identity to be revealed to the Complainant. As a result, the director did not disclose the names of the staff and did not provide particulars of the comments that were made.

The complaint is that the director of nursing should be required to acknowledge that she handled the situation inappropriately and should have followed the outcome of the Respondent’s grievance procedure.

This had a stressful effect on the Complainant who had to take time off for work related stress. It also undermined her trust confidence in her employer when they refused to follow their own grievance procedures/outcomes.

Prior to the meeting on 5 March 2018 a number of work colleagues of the complainant approached a director of nursing and made negative comments about the Complainant’s manner towards them. They were not complaints as such, they were more like negative comments that the director of nursing believed should be treated informally by her giving feedback to the Complainant directly. She did not believe that it would escalate in the manner that it did. She accepts that the Stage 1 grievance finding was that the names be revealed to the Complainant but as the parties did not wish their names to be revealed the director of nursing felt the need to protect those who did not wish their identity to be revealed.

In the opinion of the Respondent the escalation occurred because the Complainant overreacted to feedback which was critical of her, which as an employer they are under an obligation to give.

This is an unhappy case where the Respondent’s intention to provide negative feedback to the Complainant in an informal way was regarded by the Complainant as grossly undermining of her work and the many years of service that she had given to her employer.

I have been asked to give effect to the outcome of the grievance hearing on 24 July 2018 and bearing in mind the obligation on the WRC Adjudication Services to give effect to internal industrial relations procedures (unless they are biased or defective) I do not accept that I, nor the Respondent, can simply choose to ignore the outcome of a grievance hearing.

However, in upholding the grievance outcome I must give effect to all the findings.

Therefore I find as follows: While the director of nursing acted in good faith attempting to provide negative feedback to the Complainant, I find that, as a result of the manner that this was effected no-one was satisfied with the result.   Neither the complainant nor those who had allegedly criticised her. As a result, the matter was permitted to escalate as if a serious complaint had been lodged against the Complainant, which it never had been.

The recommendation was made was that as the Complainant wished to raise the grievance to a formal level, she was entitled to know what had been said against her and by whom. I can understand why the director of nursing did not wish to disclose the names of these parties, but it is without doubt that this was the recommendation made at the Stage 1 grievance hearing.

It is part of the Industrial dispute scheme that internal attempts to resolve disputes are given effect to and this case is not different in that respect from many other Industrial Relations complaints where the Respondent seeks that a grievance outcome be upheld as opposed to being set aside.

I accept that feedback – both negative and positive is something that all employees (no matter how experienced) have to approach with a degree of openness. Everyone can improve the way that they work and no one is above criticism. I find however that this situation could have been dealt with more delicately by the director of nursing and having raised a formal grievance at the Stage 1 hearing, the Complainant was entitled to know the nature of the complaints and the identity of those who made them.

I recommend that the names be now provided to the Complainant (because that is the remedy sought by the Complainant in her complaint form) and I recommend that the sum of €3000 be paid to the Complainant for the failure by the Respondent to give effect to its own grievance procedures and the effect that this has had on her confidence at work