Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Care Worker

An Employer

Representatives

Ted Kenny SIPTU

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-00035033-001

04/03/2020

The Employee filed her complaint with the Workplace Relations Commission on 4 March 2020 as against her Employer.

The hearing was conducted remotely in accordance with the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and Statutory Instrument 359/2020 which designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings

It is the Employee’s dispute that she lodged a complaint under the Employer’s Dignity at Work Policy over 18 months ago and management have not followed the policy and no investigation has taken place.

The Complainant set out the time line of events as follows:

20 April 2016 – the Employee had a meeting with the local Board of Management

5 May 2016 – The Employee submitted a complaint in writing

14 December 2016 – The Employee attended a second meeting with the local Management

28 February 2017 – the Employee received written notification that her complaint would be investigated under the Dignity at Work policy

19 April 2017 – the Employer offered the Employee mediation, but she declined.

5 May 2017 – the Employer wrote to the Employee identifying two individuals who had been appointed to carry out the investigation

21 June 2017 – the Employer again wrote to the Employee requesting that she attend a meeting, but it was noted that the investigation had been cancelled several days before on 19 June 2017.

18 September 2019 – The Employee received further notification of the appointment of two other investigators

24 January 2020 – the Employee received a further letter from the Employer advising of another investigation.

16 June 2021 – the Employer wrote to the Employee advising that a new individual would be taking over responsibility for her investigation.

November 2021 – the Employee although advised by the Employer that there was no complaint against her , received a written complaint from a fellow employee that same day in the post. It was dated “resubmitted Nov 9th, 2021”

It was submitted on behalf of the Employee that it was beyond belief that an investigation under the Dignity at Work Policy , first initiated on 20 April 2016 has yet to be completed. Compensation is sought by the Employee.

The Employer opened its response by acknowledging the “significant length of time” that has passed since the Employee raised her complaint. The Employer confirmed at the hearing that it has endeavoured to engage with all relevant parties and their representative to progress the Dignity at Work formal investigation process.

The Employer outline the policies it has in place with particular focus on the Dignity at Work policy.

The Employer further outlined the communications between it and the Employee’s representative both through the services offered by the Workplace Relations Commission and directly in December 2017 and again in April, May and August 2018. There was also a complaint made by a party other than the Employee which directly related to the investigation before the WRC and was decided upon in July 2018. A further complaint to the WRC was dealt with by a decision of July 2021 which was subsequently referred to the Labour Court and decided upon on 26 October 2021.

There is no doubt there has been a significant delay in the investigation of this matter.

It is clear that there has been ongoing communication between the Employer and the Employee’s representative. The three complaints not involving the Employee but having the potential of having a material impact on the investigation into the Employee’s complaint, have to be taken into consideration. 

It must also be noted that the Employer has acknowledged the delay and committed to proceedings with the investigation. This commitment must be viewed as a positive step forward.

However, such a delay not only has a detrimental impact on the Employee and their working life but also on their right to have their complaint formally investigated without delay. It is for the benefit of all parties involved that such investigations are carried out in a timely manner.

It is recommended that the Employer compensate the Employee in the sum of €2,000 for the inordinate delay in investigating her complaint.

I further recommend that the Employer commence the investigation into the Employee’s complaint of 5 May 2016 within six weeks of the date of this Recommendation.

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Care Worker

An Employer

Representatives

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-00035033-001

04/03/2020

The Employee filed her complaint with the Workplace Relations Commission on 4 March 2020 as against her Employer.

The hearing was conducted remotely in accordance with the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and Statutory Instrument 359/2020 which designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings

It is the Employee’s dispute that she lodged a complaint under the Employer’s Dignity at Work Policy over 18 months ago and management have not followed the policy and no investigation has taken place.

The Complainant set out the time line of events as follows:

20 April 2016 – the Employee had a meeting with the local Board of Management

5 May 2016 – The Employee submitted a complaint in writing

14 December 2016 – The Employee attended a second meeting with the local Management

28 February 2017 – the Employee received written notification that her complaint would be investigated under the Dignity at Work policy

19 April 2017 – the Employer offered the Employee mediation, but she declined.

5 May 2017 – the Employer wrote to the Employee identifying two individuals who had been appointed to carry out the investigation

21 June 2017 – the Employer again wrote to the Employee requesting that she attend a meeting, but it was noted that the investigation had been cancelled several days before on 19 June 2017.

18 September 2019 – The Employee received further notification of the appointment of two other investigators

24 January 2020 – the Employee received a further letter from the Employer advising of another investigation.

16 June 2021 – the Employer wrote to the Employee advising that a new individual would be taking over responsibility for her investigation.

November 2021 – the Employee although advised by the Employer that there was no complaint against her , received a written complaint from a fellow employee that same day in the post. It was dated “resubmitted Nov 9th, 2021”

It was submitted on behalf of the Employee that it was beyond belief that an investigation under the Dignity at Work Policy , first initiated on 20 April 2016 has yet to be completed. Compensation is sought by the Employee.

The Employer opened its response by acknowledging the “significant length of time” that has passed since the Employee raised her complaint. The Employer confirmed at the hearing that it has endeavoured to engage with all relevant parties and their representative to progress the Dignity at Work formal investigation process.

The Employer outline the policies it has in place with particular focus on the Dignity at Work policy.

The Employer further outlined the communications between it and the Employee’s representative both through the services offered by the Workplace Relations Commission and directly in December 2017 and again in April, May and August 2018. There was also a complaint made by a party other than the Employee which directly related to the investigation before the WRC and was decided upon in July 2018. A further complaint to the WRC was dealt with by a decision of July 2021 which was subsequently referred to the Labour Court and decided upon on 26 October 2021.

There is no doubt there has been a significant delay in the investigation of this matter.

It is clear that there has been ongoing communication between the Employer and the Employee’s representative. The three complaints not involving the Employee but having the potential of having a material impact on the investigation into the Employee’s complaint, have to be taken into consideration. 

It must also be noted that the Employer has acknowledged the delay and committed to proceedings with the investigation. This commitment must be viewed as a positive step forward.

However, such a delay not only has a detrimental impact on the Employee and their working life but also on their right to have their complaint formally investigated without delay. It is for the benefit of all parties involved that such investigations are carried out in a timely manner.

It is recommended that the Employer compensate the Employee in the sum of €1,500 for the inordinate delay in investigating her complaint.

I further recommend that the Employer commence the investigation into the Employee’s complaint of 5 May 2016 within six weeks of the date of this Recommendation.