Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Senior Social Worker

A Public Body

Representatives

  complainant

Respondent Regional Hr Manager

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-00057402-001

29th June 2023

The employee made a complaint in relation to two of her managers.  Following an appeal, the outcome of which the employee accepted, it transpired that the two managers had not been included and had no opportunity to present their account of what had happened.  They felt that the recommendation included in the Appeal was not valid and did not wish to implement it in full.

The complainant has worked as a senior social worker for the respondent since May 2017. In November 2020 the complainant had an issue with her acting team leader (Mr X) and also the regional HR Manger (Ms Y) in that after she had been seen by Occupational health, who had recommended no additional tasks be allocated to her for a period of 8 weeks, the managers in question contacted OCC health , without consulting with the complainant , to query if she should be asked to work part-time hours. The complainant was only informed of this query retrospectively. When she tried to discuss this with the managers they were rude and dismissive.  The complainant lodged a complaint under the respondent’s grievance procedure and this was not heard until June 2021 by an external party. When the complainant received the outcome of the hearing she appealed it as she did not feel that it addressed the issues she had raised.

In June 2022 the appeal was heard by an area manager of the respondent. The complainant was informed that this was a stage 2 hearing. The complainant received the outcome of this appeal and one of the recommendations was that the two managers should meet with her to discuss the complaint. In October 2022 the complainant’s line manager queried why this recommendation had not been implemented.  The complainant was informed that the two managers in question had not been informed that she had appealed the original outcome and therefore were not aware that there had been new recommendations made.

The managers stated that they would be willing to meet with the complainant, however, they would make no admissions or apologies. The complainant advised that this was not acceptable.

In response the Regional Manager suggested that the process start over and engage an external party to investigate the original complaint. 

As decisions were made at a very high level not to follow the grievance procedure not to mention the intolerable delays in dealing with her grievance the complainant no longer has faith in her employer being able to resolve the grievance and is seeking compensation for the manner in which she was treated. 

 In January 2021 the complainant submitted a complaint under dignity at work Policy against two senior managers to her line manager.  After discussion and agreement with the complainant an independent investigator (Dr A) was appointed to investigate the complaint at Stage 1 of the Grievance Procedure.

Dr. A completed a comprehensive independent investigation of the allegations and issued his report which did not uphold the complainant’s Grievance in September 2021.  Six months later, in February 2022, the complainant appealed the outcome and sought to have her grievance heard at Stage 2 of the procedure.  A Regional Chief Officer (Ms B) from a different region was assigned to hear the complaint at Stage 2.

In July 2022 Ms. B issued her findings which partially upheld the complainant’s complaint and provided some recommendations. The complainant accepted the outcome.

In November 2022 the complainant raised the Stage 2 findings with her line manager and sought to have a “Mediated face to face meeting” with the Mr X and Ms Y as contained in the recommendations. While a meeting was recommended, a mediated process was not referred to in the findings or recommendation.   The new area manager (Ms C) investigated the matter and sought copies of the report etc. as she was not in situ at the time of investigation. 

In January 2023 Ms. C informed the complainant that she had obtained a copy of the report and also consulted with Mr X and Ms Y on the recommendations. Ms. C informed the complainant that she was aware that both Mr. X and Ms Y had not been included in the Stage 2 process and therefore were not aware of its happening or indeed of its outcome. Despite this they were available and willing to meet with her without any preconditions. The complainant declined this offer.  

Ms. C also offered to have Stage 2 of the procedure rerun by an independent investigator if the complainant so wished.  Again the complainant declined this offer.    

 The respondent’s position has been clear and consistent throughout and it has processed the grievance in accordance with its procedures and will continue to do so. The complainant’s referral to the WRC is out of procedure and premature. She has not exhausted the internal procedures available to her.  

Secondly it should be noted that one of the allegations before the WRC is new and has not been made previously. The substantive issues identified at stage 1 were 

a.           an occupational health report was queried without the complainant’s knowledge

b.           communication was by email. 

At stage 2 it became a claim of mismanagement 

Now before the WRC it is a claim of two managers “being rude and dismissive”. 

 The respondent Grievance Procedure has three Stages of which the complainant has only utilised one. It is accepted that Stage two should have included the two managers in order to have all parties included in accordance with the procedure. The offer to rerun stage 2 remains available to the complainant but more importantly the offer by the two managers to meet with the complainant without any preconditions remains in place. 

To have the issue before the WRC at this point is premature and fails to exhaust the internal processes available to the complainant. The respondent has acted in good faith at all stages of its procedures and has offered the complainant independent investigators at all stages. It has also acted in a timely manner despite significant delays on the complainant’s side. 

The respondent has the responsibility to run the grievance procedure and adhere to its provisions.  The respondent therefore had the responsibility to ensure that any external person appointed to hear the grievance adhered to the policy. In this instance, given that the complaint was against two managers under the Dignity at Work policy, when the appeal took place, good practice should have ensured that the views of these managers were also considered.  I note that the managers were prepared to meet with the complainant however, from her point of view, this did not fulfil the recommendation contained in the Appeal.

I note that the respondent has offered to rerun the grievance in its entirety and the complainant does not wish to do so.  I also note that the incident which gave rise to the complaint is not a recurring incident.  I therefore conclude that it would be pointless to rerun the grievance.   

The respondent points out that a new grievance has been introduced at the hearing, however, I believe that fundamentally the new complaint is linked to the original incident and it would not be of benefit to either party to reopen this as a separate grievance.

It is not my role to investigate the grievance but rather to look at the process used.  There were clearly deficiencies in this process which prejudiced the position of the complainant and indeed the two managers against whom the complaint was made.

I recommend that the respondent review its procedures to ensure there is no recurrence of incidents of this nature and inform both the complainant of what measures have been taken. I also recommend that the respondent pay the complainant the sum of €1000 in compensation for the way her grievance was handled in full and final settlement of the dispute.

I recommend that the respondent review its procedures to ensure there is no recurrence of incidents of this nature and inform both the complainant of what measures have been taken. I also recommend that the respondent pay the complainant the sum of €1000 in compensation for the way her grievance was handled in full and final settlement of the dispute.

Failing to afford proper procedures