Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Midwife

Health Service

Representatives

Mr. Maurice Sheehan, Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation

Self-Represented

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts

CA-00045648

12/08/2021

The Worker commenced employment in August 2004. On 12th August 2021, she referred a dispute within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Acts to the Commission. Following the Employer’s election to engage with the dispute, a hearing was convened for, and finalised on, 7th July 2022.

By submission, the Worker has alleged that the Employer’s delay in progressing a inter-personal grievance has resulted in an inability to have the same effectively investigated. By response, the Employer stated that no unreasonable delay existed and that they investigated the complaints as thoroughly as possible.

Both parties issues written submissions in advance of the hearing. These submissions were expanded upon and contested by the opposing party in the course of the hearing.

No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the dispute were raised at any stage of the proceedings.

The Worker referred a grievance under the terms of the Employer’s “dignity at work” policy on 5th March 2020. Following some discussions in relation to this matter, a comprehensive statement setting out the various grounds of the Worker’s grievances were delivered to the Employer in June 2020.

Thereafter, the Employer undertook no material effort to process the matter. In an effort to make progress on the complaint, the Worker referred a second statement of grievance on 14th April 2021, over one year since the initial complaint was referred. Following the same, the Employer arranged a mediation conference between the Worker and the three other parties referred to in the complaint. Unfortunately, given the passage of time since the initial referral of the complaint, two of the parties had left the employment, resulting in the Employer’s inability to properly investigate the issue.

In summary, the Worker submitted that she experienced an inordinate delay in the processing of her internal complaint. She submitted that this delay resulted in an inability to have the matter properly investigated, or investigated at all.

By response, the Employer denied that the process suffered from an inordinate delay or that this delay served to deny the Worker justice.

In June 2020, the Complainant raised a number of grievances, including a series of allegations regarding the conduct of two of her line managers. Following receipt of the same, the Worker attended a meeting with management whereby issues regarding the conduct of a third manager were raised.

On 3rd July 2020, a HR representative for the Employer contacted the Worker requesting a meeting regarding the issues raised. At this point, due to the restrictions arising from the Covid-19 pandemic, the HR representative was unable to meet in person and requested a remote meeting. In the course of said meeting, dated 14th July 2020, the Worker confirmed the nature of the complaint and discussed the manner in which she would prefer to have the same dealt with.

Following the same, a follow-up meeting was arranged for 24th September. In the course of this meeting, the HR representative informed the Worker that the respondents to the complaint had been notified of the same. At this point mediation was suggested as a method by which the issues could be resolved. On 28th October, the HR representative corresponded with the Worker advising that she had sought meetings with the respondents to the complaint, however this was proving difficult due to the restrictions rising from the Covid-19 pandemic.

In December 2020, the HR representative met with the representatives for the various parties and arranged a mediation conference. Following discussions in relation to this matter, it was agreed that the parties would proceed to external mediation on 3rd February 2021. Thereafter, the Worker proceeded to mediation in respect of one of the respondents. Unfortunately, another of the other respondents retired in the course of the process and could not attend the mediation. Regarding the finals respondent, a meeting was arranged between the parties in April 2021, whereby the matter was resolved.

In summary, the Employer denied that the matter was subject to an inordinate delay. They submitted that the Employer made contact shortly following receipt of the formal complaint and remained in continuous contact thereafter. They submitted that this process took place during period of historic strain on the Employer, both from the Covid-19 pandemic and the cyber-attack that occurred thereafter. They submitted that while it was unfortunate that one of the parties retired prior to engaging the mediation, this was unavoidable in the circumstances.

The present dispute relates to the Worker’s contention that the Employer’s delay in processing an internal, inter-personal was excessive and led to a situation whereby the matter could not be properly investigated at all.

The first point to note in relation to the above is that the matter referred was quite complex. The initial grievance referred by the Worker referred to wide-ranging series of matters, some of which were inter-personal in nature and some of which were not. In addition to the same, I note that the issue as the raised by the Worker referred to three separate persons. On foot of the same, the HR representative progressing the complaint had to correspond with three different persons and their representatives prior to any action being taken. In this regard, I am also conscious of the issues facing the Employer as an organisation during this period. During 2020, and into 2021, the health service was placed under a significant amount of strain with the issues arising from the Covid-19 pandemic. During this period, many administrative staff were taken from their normal duties with the inevitable result that certain matters, including the present dispute, were delayed. Finally, it is well documented that the Employer was subject to a cyber attack that served to compromise many of their systems.

Against this backdrop, it is perhaps unsurprising that this process was subject to a delay. However, from the information provided, it is apparent that the Worker referred her complaint in March 2021. The mediation conference called in foot of the same was arranged in early 2021, almost a full year after the Employer was aware of the issues. It should be noted that at this point the complaint had not even been partially investigated. While some portion of the delay is explainable by the Employer, and is attributable to events beyond their control, a delay of this magnitude cannot be said to be reasonable in the circumstances. I further note that the delay did have a material impact on the investigation, with one of the respondents to the complaint retiring in the interim, effectively finalising the process.

Having regard to the totality of the foregoing points, I recommend in favour of the worker. In circumstances whereby the complaint cannot be processed any further, I recommend that the Employer pay the Worker the sum of €2,500 in settlement of the dispute.

I recommend in favour of the worker. In circumstances whereby the complaint cannot be processed any further, I recommend that the Employer pay the Worker the sum of €2,500 in settlement of the dispute.

Delay, Covid-19, Pandemic