FULL RECOMMENDATION
PARTIES : A CANCER SUPPORT SERVICE DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1.Complaint regarding Dignity at Work Procedures. The Worker herein was employed as Nurse Manager by the Respondent Cancer Support Service from 19 April 2021 to 27 August 2021. She went out on unpaid sick leave on 1 July 2021. She did not return to the workplace thereafter but tendered her resignation on 30 July 2021. The Worker is seeking compensation for her loss of earnings during the period of unpaid sick leave. The Court received lengthy written submissions from both the Worker and the Respondent. However, it was agreed at the outset of the within hearing that the issue in dispute was a net issue and related to the manner in which the Respondent had proceeded to deal with a formal complaint made by a colleague against the Worker. The person who made the complaint was also an experienced cancer nurse (‘Ms R’) who had had a long association with the Respondent and who had provided interim cover prior to the Worker’s appointment and who was, at the time of the complaint, retained on a contract for services basis to provide a six- to eight-week handover to the Worker. Ms R’s formal complaint stemmed from a series of interactions she had had with the Worker commencing on Monday 24 May 2021 when Ms R attended at the workplace and advised that she had a head cold. The Worker asked her to contact her GP to determine if she needed a Covid Test. Ms R did subsequently undertake a test the result of which was negative. She informed the Worker of this on the morning of Wednesday 26 May 2021 and indicated her intention to attend the workplace the following day to participate in a planned training programme. The Worker instructed her not to attend. Ms R returned to the workplace the following Monday. A new Centre Manager (‘Mr H’) had taken up post on 17 May 2021. He had scheduled a meeting with Ms R on 31 May 2021. That meeting went ahead although the Worker had instructed Ms R that she was not to attend that meeting as she (the Worker) was Ms R’s line manager. Ms R raised her concerns with Mr H at the meeting in relation to the manner in which the Worker had interacted with her since 24 May. Ms R subsequently formalised her complaint against the Worker. One of the Respondent’s directors was asked to deal with the issues raised by Ms R. She informed the Worker of the formal complaint and proposed mediation as a way forward. The Worker declined the offer of mediation. The director, thereafter informed the Worker that the Respondent had determined that Ms R’s complaint would be the subject of an investigation by a neutral third party. The Worker declined to engage with any such investigation and maintained that the Respondent’s Harassment and Bullying Policy mandated that the complainant should be dealt with in an informal manner. This is the nub of the dispute between the Parties. It turns, in part, on the interpretation of the wording of the Respondent’s Harassment and Bullying Policy (‘the Policy’) and, in part, on what Mr Kyne termed ‘Management’s right to manage’. The following wording appears in the Policy: “If an informal approach is inappropriate or if after the informal stage, the bullying persists, the following formal procedures should be invoked ….”. Discussion and Recommendation The Court, fully carefully the Parties’ written and oral submissions, concludes that the Respondent acted reasonably at all times in its efforts to engage with the Worker in relation to the formal complaint made against her by Ms R. The Respondent initially offered the Worker the option of engaging in mediation. This was declined by the Worker. The Respondent, having formed the view that the substance of the complaint was of a significantly serious nature such that it was not suitable for resolution via the informal procedures in the policy, indicated to the Worker that an independent investigator was to be appointed and agreed terms of reference were to be drawn up with the Worker’s input. Unfortunately, as already outlined above, the Worker declined to engage with the independent investigator, went out on a lengthy period of unpaid sick leave and ultimately resigned her job. The Court finds that the Respondent’s approach is consistent with its written Policy. The Court also finds that the Worker cannot be said to have acted reasonably in refusing to engage with the independent investigation of the complaint against her. It follows that the Court finds her complaint to be not well-founded. Her request for compensation is, accordingly, without merit. The Court so recommends.
NOTE |
