Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Clerical Officer

Health Services Provider

Representatives

SIPTU

Corporate Employee Relations

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-00040738-001

02/11/2020

The Worker is employed as a Clerical Officer within the Employer organisation. The Worker is aggrieved at the delay in completing an investigation into a complaint by her against her line manager and also a counter complaint against her by her line manager. Both complaints were submitted under the Employer’s Dignity at Work Policy in 2018. The Worker alleges that she has been unfairly treated at work as she has been transferred from her normal place of work pending the outcome of the investigations.

The Worker submits as follows:

In 2018, the Worker made a complaint against her (then) Line Manager under the Employer’s  Dignity at Work Policy.  Subsequently, the Line Manager made a complaint against the Worker which, for some reason, management appear to have deemed to be of higher importance. An investigation into the Line Manager’s allegations was commenced, resulting in the Worker’s transfer from Location A to Location B pending investigation.  

 An investigation team was established to examine the Line Manager’s complaint. This team met with the Line Manager and others who, allegedly, provided statements which were neither signed nor dated. The Worker was never interviewed.

Without explanation, this team did not conclude its investigation. A second, and subsequently a third, investigation panel were convened both of which were also stood down without completing their investigations. The Worker received neither notice nor explanation. However, her transfer from her normal place of work ‘pending investigation’ is still ongoing.

In complete contrast to the abandoned investigation(s) of the Line Manager’s complaint against the Worker, her complaint against the Line Manager under the Employer’s Dignity at Work Policy was never commenced.

The Worker had a reasonable expectation that her complaint under the Employer’s Dignity at Work Policy would have been investigated. Her complaint pre-dated that of her Line Manager. Yet the Employer has never initiated any investigation into her complaint.

The Worker is seeking:

·       A return to her previous place of employment.

·       Confirmation that the investigation into a counter complaint made against her by a previous line manager will not be reactivated.

·       An appropriate and dissuasive amount in financial compensation for the Employer’s failure to comply with its own procedures, and for the stress and anxiety which this has caused.

The Employer submits as follows:

On 8 May 2018 the Worker relocated from Location A to Location B. The decision to relocate the Worker was made as a protective measure whilst a complaint and counter complaint was investigated to ensure that both parties to the complaint were protected.

On 15 May 2018 management received a formal complaint from the Worker under the Employer’s Dignity at Work Policy.  The complaint was screened under the Employer’s Dignity at Work Policy and was accepted as being eligible to be dealt with under the Dignity at Work Policy. On 21 December 2018 the National Investigation Unit (NIU) were provided with the result of the Dignity at Work screening and also a request to set up an investigation under the Dignity at Work Policy. An investigation team was proposed and a revised terms of reference was issued on 3 May 2019.

On 8 July 2019 the investigation team chair advised the NIU that one of the investigators had a conflict of interest and was unable to proceed.  The NIU provided a new proposed investigation team on 11 July 2019.  The NIU was informed on the 27 September of an objection to the chairperson of the investigation team. A new team was proposed on 5 November 2019. The chair of this team was objected to.

A new team was proposed on 18 December 2019. One of the members of this team had to resign from the investigation because of a new role. Another team was proposed on the 5 February 2020.

Between 13 March and 16 June 2020, staff from the NIU were redeployed to assist in the Covid 19 response.

On 30 July 2020 the chairperson of the investigation team informed the NIU that the terms of reference and the investigation file were not satisfactory.  The chair of the investigation team returned the terms of reference and the file on 4 August 2020.

On 16 November the chair of the investigation team indicated that the team were ready to begin but that they would be unable to start until January 2021.  One of the investigation team stepped down on 6 January 2021. It was decided that the chair of the investigation team would proceed on their own. 

There were further delays between January 2021 and now which have impeded the progress of this investigation.

Once a Dignity at Work complaint is referred for investigation it is sent to the NIU to manage the process.  The Dignity at Work policy does state that issues should be dealt with as speedily as possible.  A number of issues have arisen in this particular situation which has caused inordinate and unacceptable delays to the process.

It is regrettable that the investigation process has taken such a long time. Despite there being some valid reasons for the delays, it is not acceptable that an employee should have to wait such a length of time to have a complaint dealt with. The Employer would like to apologise to the Worker for the delay in dealing with her complaint.  The other party to this complaint is no longer an employee of the Employer organisation.

The Worker continues to work in Location B and is accommodated in a modern and up to standard office environment.  The Employer is happy with the current placement of the Worker and wishes her to remain at Location B.

There are three issues in dispute between the parties – the Worker’s place of work; the status of the complaint by the Worker and the counter complaint by her Line Manager under the Employer’s Dignity at Work Policy; and, the delay in investigating the complaint by the Worker and the counter complaint by her Line Manager under the Employer’s Dignity at Work Policy.  I will examine each of these issues in turn.

Location of Workplace

In relation to the location of the Worker’s place of work, I note that the Worker is of the view that it is unreasonable to continue with the transfer in the absence of an investigation of the complaints that gave rise to it.  Additionally, the Worker believes that her continued transfer might cause others to believe that she is guilty of wrongdoing particularly since her Line Manager has been promoted.

On the other hand, I note that the Employer’s preference is for the Worker to remain at Location B as that is the hub location of the service in which she works.  I also note that, at the hearing, the Employer stated that it is very happy with the Worker’s performance at Location B.   

In light of the above, I recommend that the Worker accepts that Employer’s offer to discuss the location of her workplace with her on her return from maternity leave.

Status of Investigation

The investigation into the Worker’s complaint against her Line Manager and his counter complaint against her under the Employer’s Dignity at Work Policy has been ongoing for almost four years without any discernible progress being made in that time.  Given the length of time that has elapsed since the complaints were first raised, and the fact that the Line Manger is no longer an employee of the Employer, I am of the view that the investigations are now moot and should be terminated immediately.

Length of Investigation

I am of the view that the investigation into the Worker’s complaint against her Line Manager and his counter complaint against her under the Employer’s Dignity at Work Policy has taken an unacceptable length of time which has resulted in unnecessary worry and stress for the Worker.  I note that, at the hearing, the Employer apologised to the Worker for the delay.  I recommend that an award of compensation is the appropriate remedy in this regard.

Having considered the submissions of both parties, I recommend as follows:

·       In relation to the Worker’s request to return to work in Location A, I recommend that this be discussed between the Worker and the Employer immediately on her return to work from maternity leave.

·       In relation to the status of the investigations of the complaint submitted by the Worker and the counter complaint submitted by her Line Manager under the Employer’s Dignity at Work Policy, I am of the view that these are now moot and, therefore, I recommend that that they are terminated with immediate effect.

·       In relation to the delay in investigating the complainants under the Employer’s Dignity at Work Policy, I find that an award of compensation is appropriate in all of the circumstances of this dispute.  Accordingly, I recommend that the Employer pay the Worker compensation in the amount of €10,000. 

Complaints under the Employer’s Dignity at Work Policy