Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Psychiatric Nurse

Health Service

Representatives

Ms. Caroline Brilly, Psychiatric Nurses Association

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

IR - SC - 00000394

21/06/2022

On 21st June 2022, the Worker referred a dispute within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Acts to the Commission. In circumstances whereby the Respondent failed to object to the same within the statutory timeframe, the matter proceeded to hearing. Said hearing was convened for, and finalised on, 10th March 2023. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced by either party in the course of the hearing.

This matter was listed and heard alongside recommendation references, IR - SC – 00000391, IR - SC – 00000392 and IR - SC - 00000393. In circumstances whereby the factual matrix is common across all four disputes, the same recommendation will issue in respect of all matters.

No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the disputes were raised at any stage of the proceedings. At the outset of the hearing, the parties stated that they had agreed much of the issues outlined in the complaint forms, with the only mater outstanding being the level of compensation to be issued to the Workers. In circumstances whereby the parties could not find agreement in relation to this matter, this remains the sole point of dispute and, consequently, will be the only matter considered across the recommendations. 

The Worker submitted that she was subjected to a delay in the processing of the procedure under the Employer's dignity at work policy. She summitted that this process commenced in June 2018 and finalised in March 2022, an utterly intolerable delay and the source of a considerable degree of personal distress.

Following local discussions in advance of the hearing, the Worker reached an agreement with the Employer in respect of the issue, with the Employer accepting the Worker’s submission in this regard. While the Worker was willing to accept a written apology from the Employer, she believed that the compensation suggested by the Employer was insufficient given the distress caused as a result of the delay. In this regard, the Worker’s representative suggested that compensation to the value of €10,000 would be appropriate in this matter. In this regard, the Worker’s representative opened numerous other recommendations from this forum whereby compensation in excess of €5,000 was awarded for lesser delays.

At the outset, the Employer’s representative conceded much of the allegations made by the Worker and stated that they were in the process of settling the matter with the Worker and her colleagues. In this regard, the sole matter outstanding was the quantum of compensation to be offered to the Worker. The Employer’s representative stated that the suggested figure of €10,000 was excessive and instead was prepared to offer €5,000. In this regard, he stated that he was administering public funds and could not simply accede to the Worker’s demands in this regard.

In support of his position, the Employer’ representative opened numerous recommendations whereby compensation of €5,000 or less was awarded in respect of delays in respect of an internal procedure. 

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

The present dispute is somewhat unusual in that much of the matters initially in dispute have been conceded by the Employer. The sole matter that remains relates to the quantum of compensation to be offered to the Worker on foot of the matters conceded by the Employer. In this regard the Worker’s representative has suggested compensation of €10,000, whilst the Employer has offered the sum of €5,000. Both parties referred to numerous decisions of this forum in support of this position.

Regarding the authorities cited by both parties, I find that the matter of HSE -v- A Worker LCR22562 to be the most analogous and authoritative in relation to the present dispute. The recommendation relates to a similar set of facts, being an inordinate delay in progressing an internal process causing significant personal distress to the Worker affected. This recommendation also emanates from the Labour Court, the appellate body to this forum.

In that matter, a Worker brought an inter-personal complaint under the Employer’s dignity at work policy. Following a delay of over two years, in November 2017, the Employer informed the Worker that the investigator assigned was no longer progressing the matter and the same was ultimately discontinued. In circumstances whereby the Employer was deemed to be in breach of their own procedures, the Employee in question was awarded the sum of €5,000 for the delay in processing the complaint and a further €5,000 in compensation for the personal distress caused by the same.

It should be noted that this matter remains an authority for what was decided only. No two independent matters, particularly disputes under the Industrial Relations Act, will be entirely on all fours with each other. However, in circumstances whereby the matters discussed are somewhat similar, it is useful as a benchmark for an award of compensation.

In the present matter, the delay involved was almost four years, considerably more than that considered in LCR22562. Notwithstanding the same, I note that while this process was extraordinarily protracted, it achieved some form of resolution- unlike the matter described above. Having regard to the foregoing, I find that similar compensation to the value of €5,000 in appropriate in this matter. Regarding compensation for personal distress, difficulties arise in relation to a comparative quantification. Such a matter is inherently subjective and defies simple comparison. Nonetheless, it is apparent that the matters under investigation were significant, the delay was inordinate, having regard to the same I accept that the Worker suffered considerable distress as a result of the same. In this regard, I measure compensation to the value of €3,000 to be appropriate in the circumstances.

Having regard to the totality of foregoing points, I find in favour of the Worker in relation to the dispute referred. Regarding compensation, I recommend that the Employer pay the sum of €8,000 in settlement of the dispute. 

Dispute, Quantum, Compensation