LCR22999

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00037831 (CA-00049248-002).

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 15 December 2023 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. This appeal was heard in conjunction with ADJ-00037831 CA-00049248-001.

On 9 November 2023 the Adjudication Officer issued a Recommendation.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 25 June 2024.

DECISION:

This is an appeal by the Roisin Burke of an Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation in relation to a complaint by her against her employer HSE West, Mental Health and is interlinked with CD/24/4.

The matter before the Court concerns two interrelated disputes. Firstly, the Worker is dissatisfied with the outcome of a grievance lodged by her, which was not upheld by HSE Management. She submits that Management breached their own internal processes/policies in dealing with her complaints and in doing so did not afford her fair procedures in a timely manner.

The Worker is also dissatisfied with the way Management addressed, or failed to address, what she describes as ongoing and orchestrated accusations against her which amounted to bullying and harassment. The Worker further alleges that the Employer did not provide her with a safe working environment while dealing with complaints lodged against her.

Summary of Workers Position

The Worker has worked in a multidisciplinary team for over 22 years. In her role she offers her professional opinion from a social work perspective in a team that is predominantly nurse and doctor led. The Worker felt that she was left unsupported in a very hostile environment and felt targeted by some of her work colleagues because she advocated for patients’ family. The Worker told the Court that her complaints were handled inappropriately, and that she was subjected to ongoing flawed processes and continuous collaborative accusations against her by certain members of the multidisciplinary team in which she worked.

The Worker contends that Management failed to properly investigate her complaints, individuals involved in aspects of the process were conflicted, complaints were not investigated, certain information was withheld and there were delays in the process. As a result of these flawed processes issues have remained ongoing which has taken up a considerable amount of the Worker’s personal time submitting grievances. The Worker outlined the impact that these matters have had on her wellbeing, which she said has left her in a state of hyper-vigilance constantly looking over her shoulder and afraid of every mistake.

The Worker seeks that the Labour Court appoint an external investigation team to investigate all of the events that occurred leading up to when she lodged her grievance in 2019. The Worker seeks a significant financial remedy to compensate her for management's serious breaches in process and policy and damage to her personal and professional reputation. She further seeks a written apology from HSE management for the wrongs caused to her and mishandling of flawed processes.

Finally, the Worker told the Court that it has been a lengthy and difficult process, and she sincerely hopes that she will not be penalised for bringing her case to the Labour Court.  She seeks that all complaints be removed from her personnel file and not used against her in the future, and that any ongoing accusations/complaints should not be reactivated once this grievance process concludes.

Summary of Management Submission

Management told the Court that matters that arose in 2019 in relation to the Worker were considered by both management and the multidisciplinary team to be resolved at that time, without recourse to any other processes.

The Worker’s grievances were progressed in accordance with the terms and provisions of the HSE Grievance Procedures (Stages 1, 2 and 3).

The Stage 3 Grievance Determination, which issued to the worker on 01 October 2021, stated and confirmed that “although the grievance is not upheld there is evidence of fractured relationships, and a number of recommendations were put forward with the focus being on the reinforcement of positive working relationships.” The recommendations were as follows:

• Individual 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 agreed timelines of application.
• Appropriate team building initiatives to be considered by management.
• Management considers engaging with LETD in relation to other relevant management and staff support courses.

Management submits that, in the context of this appeal, it continues to advocate for and views voluntary mediation (between the relevant parties) as both a non-adversarial approach and methodology designed to assist the parties in working towards a resolution of work-related issues. However, it remains cognisant of the voluntary nature of the collectively agreed HSE mediation services and processes.

Recommendation

The Court recognises that the matter before the Court has been a lengthy and difficult process for the parties. It is conscious that its role in disputes such as these is to make a recommendation that can assist the parties bring a resolution to matters in dispute.

The Worker in this case chose to not accept the outcome of a Stage 3 grievance procedure process, which is within her right.  She raises several issues about how Management dealt with matters that arose when she raised a grievance and when workers raised matters in relation to her own work. She holds a genuinely held belief that the processes applied were not in adherence with HSE policy, and her dissatisfaction with those processes formed a significant part of her complaint to the Court.

For its part, Management acknowledges the delay in progressing the Worker’s grievance. It submits that many processes were delayed due to Covid-19 and took longer than normal at that time.

The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions made by both sides at the hearing.

Having regard to the oral and written submissions made, the Court is satisfied that the worker was given the full benefit of the grievance procedure at each stage of the process and, aside from the delay in progressing the grievance, it does not identify any major breaches or flaws with the processes used. The Court notes the impact that delays in processes such as these has on all parties involved.

At the hearing, the Worker confirmed that given the passage of time she was no longer seeking for matters that arose in 2019 to be subject to further investigation. She also advised the Court that in her view mediation, which she was open to avail of at an earlier stage in the process, was no longer an appropriate mechanism for resolving outstanding matters.

The Worker further submitted that the remedy that she seeks is not about money. She simply wants an acknowledgement of the issues that arose, and her treatment during that process. The Worker expressed genuine concerns that she would be penalised for having raised complaints under the grievance procedure.

Management confirmed to the Court that the Worker in this case is a valued employee held in good standing as part of a multidisciplinary team, and that there are no complaints on record relating to her, or any question of any formal action arising against her. The Court notes that no disciplinary action was taken against the Worker arising out of any of the complaints made against her. The Court further notes the commitment by Management that there was no question that the Worker would be penalised for raising a workplace grievance. 

The Worker in this case is a member of a multidisciplinary team that works in a challenging clinical environment. The Court notes that since this complaint was referred externally that a number of team building initiatives have been undertaken. Having regard to the effluxion of time since these matters were first raised, the Court considers that it is in the interests of all parties involved to put this matter behind them and move forward with their working lives.

Noting all the above, the Court recommends that the parties accept the matter to be closed.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
TH	______________________
12 August 2024	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Therese Hickey, Court Secretary.