Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Nurse

Medical provider

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00051247-001

21st of June 2022

This hearing was conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road. Both parties to the dispute had representation.

The Complainant was represented. I did not hear directly from the Complainant as his representative spoke on his behalf. The Complainant’s complaint/dispute was set out in a comprehensive submission received by me in advance of the hearing. This was opened to me with particular reference made to previous hearings involving similar issues (involving other parties) and wherein recommendations might be relied upon by me.

The Worker herein has asked me to agree with his contention that the delay in commencing an internal investigation into an allegation of bullying (made by him) has been inordinately long and therefore inherently unfair. The Complainant seeks redress, and the Complainant seeks a plan which will expedite the Investigation process

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as independent Adjudicator.

The Respondent entity was represented by the Employer Relations Manager. The Respondent provided me with a written submissions in advance of the hearing which had to be shared with the Complainant at the start of the hearing. 

Whilst the Respondent does appear to accept that there has been some delay the Respondent has put forward extenuating circumstances which the Respondent asserts has contributed to unavoidable delay on the part of this Employer.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute.

Both parties provided me with detailed submissions such that a lengthy hearing was not necessary. Most of the facts are not in dispute.

The Complainant is a Clinical Nurse Manager working in a Department of Psychiatry. The Complainant says he was subjected to a number of incidents involving a work colleague which he believes were an affront to his dignity at work.

The Complainant made a complaint to be dealt with under the Dignity at Work policy. This complaint was made on the 15th of September 2020.

As of the date of this hearing (6th of December 2022) this complaint has not been investigated and no outcome has been delivered. That is therefore a delay of in excess of two years.

I accept that in that two-year period, there has been some sporadic communication between the Complainant and the Employer herein on the progressing of this Investigation, but the fact remains that no investigation has been conducted. The Complainant’s representative has made the point that justice delayed is justice denied.

The Employer has put up a robust Defence stating that these have been unprecedented times for this Employer as it has been battling initially with the effects of a global pandemic and thereafter with the effects of a cyber-attack (which occurred in May of 2021) and which act rendered it’s records inaccessible for over six months.

The Employer does recognise that the Complainant/Worker herein has been unusually and severely impacted by the problems being encountered by the Employer in the two-year period. By way of amelioration, the Employer has offered to engage an Independent Investigator from outside the Employer body. They have offered to bear the expense of this Investigation.

The Complainant’s representative has indicated that this offer, if acted upon, would go some way towards allowing the Complainant vindicate his right to have his Complaint dealt with. In the circumstances I will be recommending this happens.

The Complainant’s representative has also sought redress for the Complainant as compensation for the excessive delay and the inherent stress and tension that this leads to in a workplace where a complaint has been made but has seemingly not been acted upon. To be fair to the Worker, he has not sought to overly dramatize the difficulty he has been placed in in his workplace but simply wants it noted that it has not been satisfactory.

Having considered the above I am bound to make a recommendation to the parties to the dispute which will set forth my opinion on the merits of the within dispute.

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

CA-00051247-001 – I am recommending that within four weeks of the date of delivery of this decision that the Respondent (and more particularly the Employer Relations Manager who spoke on behalf of the Respondent at this hearing) does provide to the Complainant’s representative with the names of three suitable candidates from amongst whom the Complainant can select and appoint an Investigator to deal with the Complainant’s complaint which is dated the 15th of September 2020.

I recommend that the Complainant’s representative does agree a timetable with the appointed Investigator in accordance with the availability of the parties.

By way of redress, I am satisfied that it is appropriate that the complainant be compensated in some small way for the inordinate delay. In assessing this, I am mindful of the incredibly difficult period experienced by the Respondent, and which contributed to some (if not all) of the delay. I am recommending that the Employer does pay to the worker compensation in the amount of €3,000.00.