Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Nurse

A care services provider

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

04/11/2021

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The worker is employed in a provision of care setting. A submission was provided to the WRC on the morning of the hearing.  The submission contained a previous WRC recommendation in relation to these matters.

The worker raised a number of matters for consideration - the failure to process a grievance, the mismanagement of a subsequent investigation the failure to correct the record in the public domain and to address the consequential unfair redeployment of the worker.

The worker is seeking recommendations in relation to these matters and is also seeking compensation in the amount of €25,000.

The employer provided quite a large and detailed submission to the WRC the day before the hearing.

In its submission the employer addressed the issues raised by the worker - the failure to process a grievance, the mismanagement of a subsequent investigation the failure to correct the record in the public domain and to address the consequential unfair redeployment of the worker.  The submission also contained a previous WRC recommendation in relation to these matters.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

The worker had a dispute with her employer.  This matter was previously the subject of a recommendation of an Adjudication Officer of the Workplace Relations Commission.  That recommendation issued a number of years ago.  As most of the matters raised by the parties in their submissions were considered by another adjudicator, I confined my deliberations to matters that were either not before my colleague or that crystalised after the issuing of the previous recommendation.  This was brought to the attention of the parties during the hearing and no objections to this course of action were raised.

The worker had been involved in a complaint regarding an abuse of the care and subsequent investigation process.  Although the process cleared a number of staff, including the worker, she was moved to a different location.  All of these matters had been raised before another Adjudication Officer and as part of that process one of the recommendations related to publication of a statement clarifying information regarding the exoneration of the worker.  It appears that no publication took place.  Although this forum is not an enforcement mechanism for previous recommendations, I noted that shortly before that hearing, an agreement was reached between the parties (but within the internal dispute resolution process) that a statement would be sent to the press regarding matters.  The only matter before me today is that this statement was not forwarded to the press in the intervening time.

The worker seeks a recommendation that respects her anonymity and the confidentiality of the process but nonetheless seeks a statement to be published in the press outlining that she was exonerated.  The employer noted that there was never a publication in the press but that it agreed to make a statement to the press.  However, this was not done at any time since it was agreed by the parties. 

The worker suggested that her reputation has been impugned in the local and national press.  The employer suggested that when operating within a care framework, it had to consider the issues that would arise for its staff and clients.

The employer noted that after the passing of the intervening period, about four years since the incident was raised, publishing a statement would involve notifying its current and former clients, together with current and former staff.  The employer suggested that this would be unnecessarily stressful to clients and staff alike.  The employer also suggested that this would not necessarily put matters to rest but might open up the original investigation once again and may have a further detrimental effect upon its client base and staff.  The employer noted that the worker was a valued employee but felt that publishing an advertisement was not the way forward, however, it agreed that a statement should be sent to the press clarifying matters.

Having regard to what the worker is seeking - guarding anonymity and the confidentiality of the process, I am not satisfied that a statement published in the press, by way of taking out an advertisement, would exonerate the worker or would be of benefit to the employer, staff or client base.  I note that the employer also offered to circulate a clarification to its staff members at two locations (which were name in the hearing).

However, I find that the employer needs to take further steps to clarify matters of the press as outlined in the agreement between the parties from September 2021.

I also find that the employer, by delaying matters has caused undue stress and hardship to the worker.

IR complaint – grievance process – existing recommendation -