Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Retained Fireman/Mechanic

A Local Authority Fire Service

Representatives

Anne Flynn of SIPTU

Keith Irvine of the LGMA

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Industrial Relations Act,1969

CA-00040361

12th  October 2020

The issue in dispute concerned a Retained Fire Fighter /Acting Driver in a Local Authority. The Worker alleged that the Council was in breach of their own Dignity at Work Policy as regards a number of issues he had raised.

 He had made numerous efforts locally, to no avail, to have his concerns addressed.

The employment commenced on the 1st of March 2008 and continues.

The rate of pay was stated to be € 580 per fortnight.

The Worker submitted a detailed Written Submission and gave a lengthy Oral testimony. He was Represented by Ms. Flynn of SIPTU.

He stated that the failures by the Employer to respond to the Workers issues in the agreed Time Frame and by a proper fair investigation resulted in a Failure in the Duty of Care to the Worker. This has resulted in considerable stress and anguish to the Worker and has led to associated financial losses.

The Worker requested that an Independent investigator be appointed to completely re investigate the case.

The Worker outlined a series of incidents between himself and a colleague, Officer X. These comprised belittling comments, insults and baseless allegations against him by Officer X who was the Workers immediate superior in the Fire Station. The negative interactions dated as far back as 2013. On the 8th of July 2019 the Worker had sent an e-mail to the Acting Chief Fire Officer outlining his concerns. He then made a formal official complaint in a lengthy e mail/letter. Based on past unhappy experience with Council procedures he wanted a formal investigation.

For want of a prompt Management response, the Worker contacted the Director of Service. On the 30th  of August the Chief Executive replied and apologised for the delays. By the 28th  of January, the Council CEO, Mr. R, contacted the Worker and informed him that he had asked Mr. B of the HR Department to investigate the matter. Mr. B later contacted the Worker to inform him that he and a Senior Engineering colleague, Ms. Ba, had been appointed by the CEO to officially investaige the matters.

The formal investigation took place on the 17th July 2020 with the Report issued on the 20th October 2020. However, the Worker had referred the dispute to the WRC on the 12th October 2020.

The Worker completely rejected the Investigation Report both in terms of time delay, inaccurate factual details and a complete lack of procedural fairness in its compilation. It basically ignored the Dignity at Work Policy.

The Investigation completely misunderstood the spirt and intention of the Dignity at Work Policy and relied on the Fire Service “Command and Control”, almost military style, management philosophy. The Worker did not deny the need for an Emergency Service, such as the Fire Brigade to have a very direct line of instruction and control particularly at Emergency incidents. However, this was not a licence for verbal harassment, inappropriate and insulting banter and general belittling of an Officer of lesser rank. The workplace had to have a culture of “equanimity” even if in a Command-and-Control scenario.

The delays in dealing with the complaint, effectively from July 2019 to the issuing of the Report in October 2020 simply added to the upset and grievances of the Worker and were symptomatic of the overall situation.

The Worker gave direct oral testimony. He was very forthright in his presentation. He was a very dedicated Fire Fighter, believed absolutely in the philosophy of a public service but could and would not accept the alleged appalling behaviours of a superior officer, Officer H. The County Council had ignored, (the allegedly well known to all Fire Crews), the numerous issues involved with Officer H. The Investigation report was little more than a box ticking exercise.

A full and completely independent re investigation was required.

The Council was represented by Mr. I of the Local Government Management Agency and supporting oral Evidence from Ms O of the Council HR Department. Mr. B, the Senior HR Officer, sent apologies but was unable to attend the hearing for personal reasons.

The Employer pointed that they had at all times to be conscious of the Legal Rights, protection of a Good Name etc of Officer H.

The Council maintained that a Grievance Complaint had been lodged by the Worker in July 2019, had been investigated in July 2020 and a Report issued in October 2020. The entire situation had to be seen against the background of a Covid Epidemic which had completely delayed all Council procedures and work routines.

Early delays in 2019 were largely due to local Fire Service Management efforts to resolve matters locally. In addition, the Complainant had been on Sick leave for a period.

The Investigation Report by Mr. B of HR and Ms. Ba was presented in evidence. It was a full and comprehensive investigation by a most experienced HR Officer, Mr B and an experienced Engineering colleague Ms Ba.

The Report could not be faulted. It was in keeping with all agreed Staff and HR Procedures such as the Dignity at Work policy. Regrettable delays were largely due to the Covid situation and the associated exceptional demands on all Council staff.

A further Independent investigation is not warranted.

In reviewing the evidence given orally by both sides and especially the Worker it was clear that a high degree of what could be called “Emotional Investment” had been made in the case. The Worker had, very admirably, pursued and obtained significant Third Level qualifications in the Fire Services/Emergency Services area. It struck the Adjudicator that the old saying of “Prophets not being recognised in their own Land” might have had some bearing on interactions with colleagues.

None the less there was a history of alleged negative interactions between the Worker and Officer H. The Council, quite rightly, pointed to the legal rights of Officer H, in this overall case. He was not present at the Hearing.

The Investigation report from Mr. B and Ms Ba was detailed. From an Adjudication standpoint few grievous or major Procedural shortfalls could be identified. The time frames in the HR /Dignity at Work Policies were not observed but in a Covid epidemic some allowance had to be made. The issue of delays was unfortunate but not such as to fatally undermine the Report.

While Mr. B was not present to give an Oral Testimony he is a well know and highly regarded Industrial Relations and HR practitioner of some considerable years’ experience. It was clear that Mr. B and his experienced Senior Engineering colleague, Ms.Ba,  had used their considerable Management , HR & IR experience to good effect in the Report.

The Conclusions were, again from an Adjudication point of view, sensible and reasonable. The investigation pointed to a difficult relationship going back for a number of years, indeed to 2013 when the first incident was mentioned.  Various lapses on all sides, including from the Complainant, were mentioned.

The Conclusions set appropriate challenges for the Fire Service Management.

The Report suggested Mediation between the Parties “to restore normal working relationships “and notes that the Investigation Team is cognisant of the

“emotional aspects that complaints such as these can have on the complainant and respondent and in this regard recommends that the Fire Service Management again provide details of the Employee Assistance Programme to both Parties”.

Accepting and making some allowance for the fact that considerable delays had occurred in the process the outcome of the Investigation Report was, it appeared, entirely appropriate.

A Recommendation from a WRC Adjudication Officer would be hard put to improve on the Report.

The Council had referred to the Legal situation and the rights of Officer H. A reinvestigation would possibly have unforeseen Legal consequences.

As the case is under the Industrial Relations Act,1969 it worth noting that a new reinvestigation would , in addition, quite likely seriously further disimprove fragile staff relationships between the Parties.

In conclusion a further Investigation report, to start from the beginning once again, would be most unlikely to, speaking realistically, come up with any different findings. It cannot be Recommended

The Parties would be more productively engaged in seeking to implement the pragmatic Conclusions of the first Report.

Investigation, Fire Service, Request for a Re Investigation.