Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Healthcare Worker

A Healthcare Service

Representatives

SIPTU

Internal/Self-represented

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-00046369

24/09/2021

The Worker is employed as a paramedic.

The dispute relates to an incident that occurred on 22nd March 2021 between two paramedics who were involved in a dispute whilst responding to an emergency call.

The Worker was very dissatisfied with the failure to investigate the matter in a timely manner and the consequent negative impacts on his life and his family member’s lives – he had been redeployed to another area as a protective administrative measure in line with the policy pending investigation of the allegation, but no investigation had taken place and he remained there two years’ later. There were repeated requests for engagement, for information and for the investigation to take place by the Worker’s union representative on his behalf.

The Employer acknowledged that there had been delays but cited the Covid-19 pandemic (and the particular impacts that had in the context of a health service with staff re-deployments etc.) as well as more general staff turnover – there had been a previously appointed investigator who then moved on to a new post before the investigation could take place.

The Worker’s case centres on extraordinary and inordinate delay.

There was an allegation against the Worker relating to an incident in March 2021, which has still yet to be investigated.

The Worker has cited his readiness and willingness to have the matter investigated and to engage with his Employer at all times; and contrasted it with his Employer’s failure to communicate with him, to engage with him and to investigate the dispute.

He emphasises the impact on him and his family, as he has been moved to a new location pending the investigation which never took place. This has had significant implications for his day-to-day life, family life and quality of life. It has also cost him money.

He believes that his right to fair procedures has been breached and that the Employer is in breach of its own policies. He is seeking access to his own file, the details of the allegation against him, and to have the matter investigated immediately.

The Worker is employed as a paramedic.

The dispute relates to an incident that occurred on 22nd March 2021 between two Paramedics who were involved in a dispute while responding to an emergency call.

The Employer’s Emergency Control Centre was informed that the crew could not complete the call and stood themselves down while en route. The crew returned to base and the call was immediately allocated to another crew.

The Employer instigated a preliminary gathering of facts relating to the incident and both paramedics as part of protective measures to ensure the safety of both paramedics and service users were redeployed to different bases.

The applicable Investigation Process under the Disciplinary Process commenced in June 2021, however, was delayed due to Covid-19 and the pausing of new and existing investigations, grievances and disciplinaries as instructed by Corporate Employee Relations Department Memo dated 27th March 2020.

The Worker lodged the dispute with the WRC on 24th September 2021 outlining dissatisfaction with perceived delays in resolving the matter.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. Mindful of both the context of the Covid-19 pandemic and the fact that there is an ongoing employment relationship between the parties, I sought to work with the parties to find a consensus-based approach.

This matter came before me three times. On 12/01/2023, a remote hearing was convened, for the purpose of hearing this dispute. A postponement was sought, and granted on consent of both parties, as a jointly agreed plan of action had been entered into, with respect to this matter.  Specifically, it was agreed that the Employer was committing to fast-tracking this case internally and, with the consent of the representative for the Worker, Ms. M. of the Employer committed to taking over the investigation of the matter personally.

The matter was listed before me again, for mention, on 01/03/2023. On that occasion, it was confirmed that an investigator had now been appointed by the Employer to investigate this matter, and that an administrative support person had also been assigned. The Worker emphasised his readiness and willingness to participate in the investigation. Both parties identified the very significant delay to date in this matter, and the consequent necessity for urgency. To that end, an agreed timeline was put in place between the parties. Specifically, the parties agreed that an eight (8) week timeline was a reasonable one, in which to conduct and conclude an investigation and to produce a draft report – this was subject to the caveat that the investigator is entitled to give proper effect to the investigation process, and without seeking to trample on the function of the investigator. Subject to that caveat, the parties agreed that during those eight (8) weeks, the investigation was to be conducted and concluded, with the aim of producing a draft report, for the sight of the Worker and his representative, on or before Monday, April 24th, 2023.

This matter was listed before me for hearing on 04/05/2023. At that hearing, however, it became apparent that the deadlines had been largely missed, that the Worker had not had sight of his file, and had not had any communication from the investigator (and had not been interviewed), and was still situated in the same redeployed location.

I conclude that, even allowing for Covid-19 and its impacts, the delays in investigating the allegation are inordinate in this case and have had a serious detrimental effect on the Worker and a knock-on impact on his family.

I conclude that the Worker is entitled to fair procedure and natural justice in the investigation of any allegation against him in line with S.I. 146/2000 – this includes, but is not limited to, access to his file, sight of the details of the allegation and who made it and the right to representation, and for the investigation to be conducted in a timely manner so as not to render the protective administrative measures legitimately put in place punitive in nature due to delay.

I find for the Worker.

I find that, even allowing for the consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic, the delays in this case are inordinate and effectively punitive in nature, which an administrative measure pending investigation should not be.

I find that there were very basic deficiencies of procedure – failure to provide the Worker with his file, with a copy of the details of the allegation against him, failure to communicate with and engage meaningfully and in a timely manner with the Worker’s representative and to provide basic updates and information. I recommend that the Employer remedy that – that it engage with the Worker’s representative and provide the Worker with all information to which he is entitled in line with fair procedure and natural justice in a timely and responsive manner, in order to allow him to participate in the investigation and respond to the allegation made.

I recommend that the allegation against the Worker is investigated fully, immediately, and the investigation concluded in a timely manner, including any and all appeals.

I recommend that the Employer pay the Worker €3,500 compensation for the delays to date in dealing with this matter.

Delay; Investigation of allegation; Administrative Measure; Punitive; Disciplinary Process; S.I. 146/2000;