Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

 A Principal Social Worker

A Health Service

Representatives

  Self Represented

A General Manager

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-00049248-001

21/03/2022

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

CA-00049248-002

21/03/2022

The Worker submitted two wide ranging disputes concerning how she was being managed, how various issues at work were dealt with, not being provided with a safe work environment, collusion against her and her dissatisfaction with the outcome of a grievance.

The Worker stated she was called to a meeting by a Consultant on the 20-11-19 where the agenda of the meeting changed two days before the meeting was held on the 5-12-19 and the Worker felt this was a serious breach of process by her Line Manager and that the Line Manager should never have brought the Worker to this meeting. She stated issues were brought up at the meeting that occurred after the meeting was called and this was another breach of process. The Worker stated she was labelled anxious at the meeting, and this was put in official minutes of the meeting and this was a breach of health and safety regulations. The meeting on the 5th was to be reviewed with follow up meeting on the 6th of February which was cancelled, another date given for 27th which was cancelled and another for the 19th which never went ahead with any consideration for the Workers welfare.

The ADON with two senior nurses on the 21-11-19 sent a group letter of complaints to the Workers Line Manager.  The Worker stated this complaint should never have been accepted by her Line Manager and that the Line Manager should have informed the ADON that she needed to go through her own Line Manager with the complaint.

On the 13-12-19  the Consultant sent a further  6 complaints against the Worker. The Worker felt the Consultant was upset that the Worker was able to defend herself at the meeting on the 5-12-19 with factual information. The Worker felt the Consultant should have gone through her own Line Manager and not have sent them to the Workers Line Manager –another breach of process. The Worker alleged there was collaboration between her Line Manager and the Consultant.

The Workers Line Manager accepted the complaints then preceded to send the 6 complaints herself to the Consultants Line Manager, this was done on the 20-12-19 with draft minutes of meeting 05-12-19  and was another breach of process

After Christmas on 27th of January’20 the Worker received two sheets of complaints from an Admin staff member through her Line Manager with a another letter  from  ADON in response to the Workers reply to her original complaints.   One of these complaints made reference to events that occurred on the 18-12-19 and were overheard by staff. The Worker wrote to admin Line Manager on 2 occasions and no investigation was carried out.

At this stage the Worker believed her Line Manger should have called an investigation as she knew what was happening and was aware of all the complaints against the Worker over a short period of time. The Worker believed her Line Manager should have protected her and called an investigation. No duty of care given and the Worker believed that her Line Manager was now a danger to her and the Worker didn’t trust her Line Manager. The Worker felt destroyed at this stage and didn’t know what was happening. The Worker felt she was left unsupported in a very hostile environment for months without any support.

The Line Manager wrote to the General Manager on the 09-01-20 outlining her concerns about the whole situation. The General Manager was aware of the whole situation and the Worker felt that the General Manager should never have heard stage 1 grievance –and he was involved in stage 2 grievance – and this was another breach of process.

The Worker felt targeted by some of her work colleagues because she was advocating for patients family. The Worker stated she was offering another professional opinion from a social work perspective as a single handed social worker on multi-disciplinary team predominantly nurse and doctor led team.

The Worker believed she was wronged by her Line Manager and General Manager and felt they  should have called an investigation immediately but they didn’t. The Worker alleged they knew that the correct processes weren’t being followed and this caused her considerable personal and professional damage. She stated the effort involved took hours away from her family when she should have been enjoying time off in the evenings and weekends as she had to respond to these letters.

The Worker stated that all she was trying to do was to protect the patient who was extremely vulnerable and pass on vital information from the family to the team and she felt punished for this. The Worker stated she received very positive feedback from a family support day.  The Worker stated she was damaged and had to go on sick leave. The Worker felt that she was not treated fairly with regard to time off for a personal event.

The Worker stated she has never received a report from her Line Manger in January 2020 and felt this was being withheld from her. And that the General Manager based his decision not to uphold the Workers grievance at stage 1 on the information he received in this report.

At stage 2, the Worker wasn’t given the timeframe or person to appeal the decision and she had to find this out by herself and she felt this was sharp practice.

At stage 3, there were also sharp practices on the 9-08-21 when the Worker attended  stage 3 Grievance  to find out no-one from H.R was there and the meeting was cancelled five minutes before it was due to be held.

The length of time the grievance process took with no consideration for the impact the delay had on the Workers mental well-being. The Worker lodged her complaint on the 19-03-20 and this was only heard on the 11-09-20,  6 months later, she said the delay was caused by them needing to collect the information but he had the information since a Manager sent him the report on the 9-01-20. He gave his determination on the 9-02-21 another six months after hearing the grievance. During this time the Worker was left in a very dangerous situation without support.

Stage 2 Grievance was heard on 6-04-21, decision made on the 29-04-21 (no time frame or name to appeal to was given.)

 Stage 3 Grievance heard on the 7-09-21, decision given on the 1-10-21. H.R questioned who the Worker made the appeal to and the Worker had to write to someone else  to explain why she made her appeal to her. The Worker felt H.R were making it difficult for her to lodge her appeal.

The Worker maintained all these events show she was targeted by some members of my MDT team and there was serious breach of processes.  She advised she worked on this team for over 20yrs and nothing like this ever happened to her before. She stated her Line Manager did not protect her and she continued with flawed meetings and breach of processes.  These events should have been investigated, the GM  knew what was happening and he did not address the issues .

The Worker stated the GM should not have been involved in hearing the Grievance at stage one and making a decision in stage 2,  as he could not give a fair un-bias recommendation.  Another serious breach of process that the Employer refused to acknowledge.

The GM and the Employer have continued to withhold information from the Worker, the report given by the Line Manger to the GM ( dated 9-01-20) which he used to make his decision in Stage one Grievance has not been shared with the Worker  to- date.

The Worker alleged she was transparent and  gave the Employer all factual information at stage one, two and three and have been transparent but alleged she cannot say the same about the Employer.

The Worker sought a written apology from her Line Manger and the GM that there was a serious breach of process which caused her considerable damage her personally and professional

The Worker was also looking for financial remediation for the wrong that was caused

The Worker stated she does not wish to be moved from her present post at the current location unless it is to a permanent  post she is happy with.

The Worker stated she did  not wish to be supervised by either her Line Manager or GM  if an apology is not given

The Grievance of the Worker was lodged and processed in accordance with the terms and provisions of the Employers  Grievance Procedures (Stages 1, 2 and 3).

The Stage 3 Grievance Determination as issued to the complainant on the 1st October 2021 stated and confirmed that "Although the grievance is not upheld, there is evidence of fractured relationships and the following recommendations focus on a re-enforcement of positive working relationships". The recommendations contained in the Stage 3 determination were set as follows

“Iindividual mediation be considered by the complainant and colleagues and to be agreed with management.

A discussion to take place between the complainant and management in regard to Social work meetings.

Senior Management to enter into discussion to agree Line management until mediation is considered and agree timeLines of application.

Appropriate team building initiatives to be considered by management.

Management consider engaging with LETD in relation to other relevant management and staff supporting courses.”

In the context of the Stage 3 Determination, which did not uphold the Grievance of the complainant, a key recommendations in the context of "evidence of fractured relationships" was mediation between the complainant and colleagues with a view to a "focus on a reinforcement of positive working relationships”  From the perspective of the Employer a process of voluntary mediation remains available to the parties in the context of working towards and seeking a resolution of all work related matters.

The Employer in the context of this adjudication process/hearing views mediation between the parties as both a non-adversarial approach and methodology, designed to assist the parties in reaching a resolution to these matters.

Employer management in the context of both its acceptance of and the implementation of the recommendations detailed in the Stage 3 determination remain cognisant however of the Employer's reliance on the voluntary participation and utilisation by its employees of the collectively agreed Employers mediation services and process's.

The Employer set out its findings at stage 3 of the Grievance Procedure as follows;

“Your Stage 3 appeal dated 17th May 2021 stated the grounds that your grievance was not upheld and that you needed more information in regard to a post that Mr. X had suggested in the outcome of the Stage 2 hearing. You stated that the conditions of your present employment as principal social worker had not been clarified.

At the Stage 3 hearing you presented your submission which included new information that had not been highlighted in your letter setting out grounds for appeal. However in an attempt to resolve, I have reviewed:

The appeal to Stage 3 email submitted by you dated 17.05.2021.

The submission and information presented for Stage 3 hearing.

The appeal to Stage 2 and associated outcome.

The original grievance heard by Mr. X  on 11.09.2020 and associated outcome.

The information reviewed by management in reaching their decision at Stage 1 and 2.

You informed me that the recommendation of the Stage 2, dated 29th April 2021 was unacceptable.”

The following Findings were issued;

“I have reviewed all information available to me in considering whether the recommendations were appropriate as detailed in the outcome of the Stage 2 grievance hearing.

In your appeal dated 17th May 2021 you state that the "l have tried my best to ascertain further information in relation to the interim transfer to the post of counsellor — therapist with the national counselling service, which was proposed in the outcome of the stage 2.....1 was informed by Ms D  that I needed to direct these questions to Director of Service Ms X, which I was unable to do so as she is on leave".

The Stage 3 Grievance was postponed to allow you the time to source further information and during the Stage 3 grievance hearing you have informed me that you are no longer interested in that option and wish to remain in your current role in (Location) I am satisfied that adequate time has been given to allow you to make that decision and this part of your appeal is closed.

Although not set out in your grounds of appeal dated 17.052021, additional information heard at the Stage 3 grievance was in relation to the original grievance and your concerns in regard to support provided by your Line Manager and subsequent management actions.

Issues 1, 3 and 4. You have set out in detail the timeLine of events to demonstrate your belief that your Manager has failed to manage internal processes in relation to complaints. Following review of documentation as above I find that management made reasonable attempts to manage processes and provide support.

I find that the conclusions reached at Stage 1 and Stage 2 grievance are reasonable.

Issue 2. You have detailed how you believe your duty of care is not guaranteed under your Line Manager. Following review of documentation as above, I find that occupational health and external support was explored and management support has been forthcoming.

I have reviewed nothing that would change the determination at Stage 1 and Stage 2.

Issue 5. I heard your concerns in relation to the grievance process. There is evidence that the grievance process could have been carried out in a timelier manner and we welcome feedback in relation to how the implementation of any of our process can be improved.

I will not deliberate on this point as this was not part of your original grievance.

I asked you what would resolve your grievance and you responded that you:

are happy to participate in individual mediation with members of the MDT, want to re-engage with Social Work Team meetings, are seeking peer supervision and have stated that principles meetings are already in place, are requesting a new administrative Line Manager (in place of AB ), wish to stay in your current position.

Grievance Conclusion

I have made a thorough review of findings and examined documents in relation to your grievance. All considerations have been made with an objective and unbiased view.

I do uphold your grievance as laid out in your grounds for appeal and subsequent submission.”

The grievance outcome continued with the recommendations set out above.

The Worker submitted two disputes for investigation. The first dispute concerned that management breached their own internal processes/policies in dealing with the Workers complaints and they did not afford the Worker natural justice and fair procedure in a timely manner. The Worker alleged that the Employer did not provide her with a safe working environment while dealing with complaints lodged against the Worker.

The second dispute lodged concerned that there was ongoing and collaboration accusations were orchestrated over a short period of time against the Worker and that these accusations in volume and intensity amounted to bullying and harassment. The Worker alleged that the people making the accusations were aware there was another person making allegations against her at the same time. The Worker alleged her Manager and General Manager did not protect her.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.  The Parties made the following contributions at the Hearing.

In her submission to the Hearing the Worker stated that a meeting held 20/11/19 was a severe  breach of procedure but she agreed to attend and that the meeting was all about the Worker and how she interacted with staff. She alleged an agenda for a meeting on December 3rd was changed without her consent. She stated her Manager should not have agreed to the meeting going ahead at the request of a Consultant. The Worker attempted to meet her Manager off site after the meeting and was told she could only look at the relevant file on work premises. The Worker stated she was unprepared for meetings as a result. The Worker stated the process took 9 months.

The Worker stated a meeting with a Consultant and Psychiatrist should never have gone ahead and that how did her Line Manager know entries had to be changed unless she was collaborating with the Consultant. The Worker alleged her Line Manger and the Consultant and Psychiatrist stayed behind after the meeting and this was a breach of procedure

The Worker advised a group of Nurses had made a number of complaints about entries and that none of the Nurses had approached the Worker informally about the issues. The Worker advised that the ADON was part of the complaints against her and they should have been individual complaints. She felt after her 20 years service all issues were coming at her. The Worker advised she worked in a team of 3 Nurses, a Doctor and 1 Social Worker and that on December 13t 2019 she had given all factual replies to issues raised. The Worker advised the Consultant made 6 further complaints via email and that she was expected to go through her Line Manger.  She advised her Line Manger sent draft minutes of a meeting to the Consultant and her Line Manger put answers in the minutes but did nothing about it. She alleged that putting these in draft minutes was a breach of procedure.

The Worker alleged that when seeing a patient in the Hospital her ADON shouted at her and she advised her Line Manger about this. The Worker advised that on Jan 27 2020 when she returned from a training day that her Line Manager approached her with 2 pages of complaints and included these in minutes of the 18/12 meeting. The Worker stated this conversation was overheard and she spent the whole Christmas responding to the complaints. The Worker advised her Line Manager put her answers into minutes but did nothing about the situation.

The Worker alleged the draft official minutes were a breach of process. The Worker asked for a report but there was no sign of one. The worker lodged a grievance on 19/3/2020.

The Worker advised there was a “Team Enhancement Day” in March 2021 which involved staff and families of patients and the day went well with the families stating they were very happy with the Worker. In the second half of the day focused on how does the team support you and the Worker broke down and had to leave the meeting. The next day the Worker was informed after a Supervisor meeting that there was an issue with other staff in the way the Worker is communicating with them or she is challenging them.

There was an issue with a Nurse and changing entries into a file. The issue was from 9 months previously and could have been done by other staff members.

The Worker went on sick leave and when she returned she was denied two days off for her daughters communion. She received one day off and was told she had to get on with her work.

At stage 1 of her grievance she was told her that the documentation does not support her claim and she never received a report. The Worker appealed this outcome.  The Worker felt unsupported in the tam and had to wait 6 months for a reply.

At stage 2 the Worker asked to be removed from the environment. She was informed no and the issues were interpersonal. The appeal was heard remotely and that the Employer could do no more for the Worker. The Worker appealed the outcome to stage 3.

At stage 3 the Worker stated the outcome felt she was being bullied, that the decision was predetermined and a flawed process had been conducted. The Worker stated she never had a problem before and trust in the Employer and her Line Manager had broken down.

The Employer stated the facts presented by the Worker were inconsistent and they were the ones being bullied by the Worker. They denied there was any breach of process and all stages of the grievance procedure were complied with. The Employer took exception to the Workers claim that they had conducted a “Kangaroo Court” and the General Manager stated he had never been accused of anything like that in his 40 years of working for the Employer. The Employer stated they need to manage their service and would have great difficulty with the WRC if they recommended moving the Worker to another area or Manager. The Employer was challenged as to why an external investigation was not completed and replied it was not necessary and can only investigate when a complaint is received.

I have examined the requests of the Worker to settle this dispute and the Employers recommendations at the end of Stage 3 of the grievance procedure.

The dispute under CA-00049248-001 alleged that management breached their own internal processes/policies in dealing with the Workers complaints and they did not afford the Worker natural justice and fair procedure in a timely manner. The Worker also alleged that the Employer did not provide her with a safe working environment while dealing with complaints lodged against the Worker. The Employer has accepted that the process took longer than expected but the time when the process was conducted was during Covid and in many cases grievances were either suspended or took longer than normal at that time so I see nothing unusual about the delay. The Employer may wish to examine its grievance procedure to ensure details are clear who the grievance will be dealt with at each stage and who an appeal should be sent to might avert any confusion in the future. Also it should look at the role of HR, if any, at these stages of the grievance procedure. While there are issues here and there in the grievance process undertook that I could examine in more detail and possibly find some little faults, the fundamental issue is the process was completed and nothing of significance stands on the claims made by the Worker about the process undertaken. The Worker has chosen to not accept the outcome of Stage 3, in what appear to be reasonable efforts to resolve the dispute and the internal interpersonal conflicts. This is her right but the alternatives proposed by the Worker are not justified or reasonable. I have concluded there is no evidence that the Employer allowed an unsafe work environment but that the issues primarily came out of interpersonal issues rather than trade disputes per se. I find in favour of the Employer. (CA-00049248-001)

The second dispute lodged under CA-00049248-002 concerned that there was ongoing and that collaboration accusations were orchestrated over a short period of time against the Worker and that these accusations, in volume and intensity, amounted to bullying and harassment. The Worker alleged that the people making the accusations were aware there was another person making allegations against her at the same time. The Worker alleged her Manager and General Manager did not protect her. It was clarified to the Worker during the internal process that she was not being moved to another location so that issue is mute. It is not for a Worker to decide who they report to and her request to be moved to another Manger and General Manger unless they issue her an apology is not realistic or deserved. I noted a high state of anxiety with the Worker at the Hearing and recommend that she consider some form of personal assistance to reduce this anxiety.  I recommend that the Worker be given the opportunity to attend a significant course on dealing with people and stress  at work and this would assist her minimise conflict situations in the future and assist with reducing the stressful situation she appears to find herself in.  This intervention should be sought out, offered and paid for by the Employer within three months of the date of this Recommendation.  Of course,  it is up to the Worker to accept this training or not but I strongly recommend that she does, for her own benefit. This may assist to reduce her stress at work and with her colleagues. I really do not see, at this stage, any mediation assisting the process of resolving the internal conflicts between the Worker, her colleagues, her Line Manger and her General Manager. It is important to note that no disciplinary action has either commenced or was taken against the Worker arising out of any of the complaints against her. I received no evidence of any collaboration against the Worker. With regard to Management protecting the Worker it is obvious the Worker had a frictional relationship with her Manager and this could have led to tensions between them and possibly a more strained relationship but this is no reason to suspect the Manager was not just doing her job.  I found the GMs contribution to the Hearing to be very understanding of the Workers situation but also a degree of frustration with the amount of conflict which the Worker was involved in with other staff. In addition, I recommend that a senior HR Manager give the Line Manager counselling on the grievance procedure and who should be involved and when an investigation is justified or not. I also recommend that the Line Manger attend a management course on managing people in conflict situations which would assist with resolving issues on a day to day basis gong forward. I see no grounds for recommending the Workers requests to resolve the dispute and to recommend compensation in favour of the Worker. I done see a need to find in favour of either party in this dispute. (CA-00049248-002)

Trade Dispute