Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Medical & Health Services Organisation

Representatives

Denis Keane of FORSA

Mr F, National

Level Senior HR/IR Manager supported by Line Managers

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 - 00002159

25/01/2024

The Dispute referred to concerned the Non-Reply of the Employer to a Grievance Stage 3 issue raised by the Worker in November 2023. Grievances at Stage 1 & 2 had unfortunately failed to resolve the dispute.  The dispute largely concerns the internal structure and operations of a major Health care Support function, the role of outside Contractors v/v internal Staff, appropriate reporting relationships and the allocation of work.

The impact of the Cyber Attack on the Health Services in May 2021 was a very significant background factor.

The Worker’s employment began on the 30th November 1980 and continued at the date of the Hearing.

The Rate of pay was approximately € 100,000 per annum for 35-hour week.

The Worker gave an Oral Testimony supported by Mr Keane of FORSA. A Written Submission was also submitted.

In summary the Worker’s issues were

·        Interpersonal difficulties with his immediate Superior, Mr C, largely stemming from some alleged inappropriate E mails from Mr C regarding the Worker and his commitment to his duties.

·        The allocation of duties / work areas, formerly done by the Worker, with contractors and other colleagues

·        The role of External Contractors

·        The general diminution of the perceived role of the Worker.

·        The general high levels of pressure being placed on the Worker to deliver new projects despite not being allocated new/additional staff to assist.

·        Controls/Irregular Oversight of the Worker’s previous Procurement functions now being undertaken by outside Contractors.

·        Personal Grievance issues being shared with the Outside Contractor.

All efforts at local resolution had failed and the delay in receiving a Reply to the Stage Three Grievance were symptomatic of the alleged overall inappropriate and off-hand treatment the Worker had experienced. He was deeply concerned for the organisation and his grievances were based on many years operating experience.

The Worker had over 42 years’ experience with the Organization, many of these years as a Senior Manager with an exemplary record.

The Employer was represented by Mr F of Head Office HR supported by three senior National Level Managers/Directors.

Detailed submissions were presented as well as extensive Oral testimony from the Managers/Directors.

Initially, Mr F, apologised for the Stage Three delay and stated that it had gone recently to the Worker and FORSA.

The key background issue was the fallout from the almost catastrophic May 2021 Ransome Ware attack on the Organisations IT Systems. This was a National level crisis and had generated very significant Cabinet /Government direct intervention with the Employer. A major international consulting Organisation, Price Waterhouse Coopers, PWC, had been commissioned and tasked with producing a detailed Report and Strategy for future Actions.

This had involved radical actions and the deployment of significant additional resources. As an almost emergency first step it had involved the Contract Interim appointment of a new Chief information Security Officer- (for convenience referred to as the CISO) The position was subsequently advertised via the Public Appointment Service but initially in 2021 the only available resource was a Contractor sourced via specialist Consultants, Ernst and Young.

The key Employer Witness was Mr T, now the Chief Information Officer of the Organisation. He described the impact of the Ransome Ware attack on a very large and essentially almost byzantine IT Infrastructure spread across the entire State. The response of the Organisation required a radical new level of thinking and unprecedented considerations of work duties and roles.

The Worker was a valued high level Senior Manager. It was understandable that Senior Managers at his level might find some of the changes difficult to understand and many would have very valid operational / technical reservations about certain issues. The role of the new E&Y sourced Contract CISO was bound to raise eyebrows from some Senior Staff. It may have been felt by some Senior Managers that possible internal candidates had been overlooked.

 The Worker here was excused, at his request from a direct reporting relationship to the CISO, instead allowed to report to Mr C, Deputy Director. It was recognised that some e mail traffic, between Mr C and the Worker might have given rise to some difficulties. However, the Employer pointed out the Worker was refusing to meet professionally with the new CISO and had, on occasion, been sending his Junior Staff to very vital Senior Level meetings. This was a major cause of concern to Mr C particularly in view of the serious nature of the Cyber attack issue. The Worker was a senior and highly experienced Manager, and his input could not be delegated to Juniors because of a perceived difficulty with the appointment of a Contract E&Y Interim Manager,

The Grievance raised by the Worker was handled at Stage One by a number of unsuccessful local meetings and progressed to Stage Two. Mr T had produced a very considered response to a very complicated situation. It proved unsuccessful and was referred by the Worker to a Stage Three Grievance. This was carried out by Mr F of National HR. In essence Mr F’s report endorsed Mr T’s Stage Two Grievance report.

It was felt that, even allowing for delays being excused in the delivery of the Stage Three Report, Mr T, the most Senior Manager involved had provided a template going forward and it should be accepted as such. The entire situation was absolutely dynamic with a multiplicity of Cyber issues/threats both internal and External having to be countered.  The Organisation had to be dynamic and fluid in these processes to keep pace with serious threat levels that varied almost daily.

It required all the IT System Staff across all functions to work co-operatively in ways never experienced before. The Stage Two Grievance outcome coupled with the Stage Three response provided for this.

It was noted that the Grievance Architecture in the organisation was probably not best suited to this absolutely dynamic type of problem.

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

4:1        Overall Introductory Remarks

The IT Cyber/Ransomware attack of May 2021 was a national emergency for the entire State.  It had threatened the entire collapse of the administration of the Health Systems.

Naturally it required a radical and unprecedented response from all Staff involved in Health Services IT systems to both seek to immediately remedy the attack and to prevent, as far as possible, a repeat.

It would be a truism to say that large organisations are by their nature quite slow moving and find adapting quickly to issues such as the Cyber-attack very challenging at all levels.

The Witness evidence from all Parties, including the Worker, to the Hearing, was very impressive and reassuring. The degree of Technical knowledge displayed was formidable. The Worker was an impressive Witness who displayed a very high level of commitment and technical expertise. His deep commitment to the Organisation was never in doubt.

The Organisations Grievance Structure was commented on in the written submissions. Quite frankly, in the Adjudicator view, it was never designed to deal with issues of this level of organisational complexity at a very Senior managerial level.

Major Reports from PWC and E&Y had been completed. It was estimated that the PWC Report had contained 258 Recommendations but subsequently “boiled down” to 58 very challenging Recommendations.

The new CIO, Mr T, had produced a very well thought out, drawing on his considerable Technical experience, Stage Two Grievance report.

The Stage Three Report from Mr F, a non-Technical person, had, in the Adjudicator view, essentially reiterated this.

4:2     Adjudication conclusion

The Employer is the largest Employer, by a considerable measure, in the entire State. The IT Department alone, was stated to have in excess of 1,000 staff.

The Grievance Procedures for the entire Organisation are well trusted and proven by many years successful use. However, the procedures are designed for primarily short-term Individual grievances that are, in essence, local and relatively easily resolved even if on occasion the good offices of the WRC have to become involved.

In the situation of the Cyber Attack the Grievance mechanisms were, in the Adjudicator view, trying to deal with a situation they had never been envisaged for. They were simply not designed to deal with the rapid types of scenarios arising from a Cyber Attack.

The use of the Grievance Procedures in this case to date cannot be seen as a criticism of either Party here- there was effectively no other option available to the Worker in a completely uncharted territory in an organisation of massive size with a National Remit.

Unprecedented Organisational structure issues and rapid work practice changes to face a threat such as the Cyber-attack are a massive challenge for all involved at all levels. How to respond to genuine Staff concerns is an integral part of any forward Managerial Strategy. It is an equal challenge for the Representative Organisations, such as FORSA in this case.

The Parties to the Oral hearing were, uniformly, deeply concerned with the well-being of the Organisation and in the delivery of good Health Outcomes for the entire State.

However, the genuine concerns of the Worker here cannot be ignored.

In summary the Adjudication view has to be that the Stage Two Grievance Report as reinforced by the Stage Three report has to be seen as the basis for a resolution of this dispute. It may be an imperfect start, but it is the best option currently available.

The only Parties, as acknowledged at the conclusion of the Hearing, capable of resolving this most complex Dispute, are the Parties involved.

Accordingly, the Recommendation has to be that the Parties return to local discussions based on the Stage Two/Three Grievance Reports.

As an aside it is also useful to recognise that any Remarks/e mails made in the course of the Dispute be seen as Technical and no Interpersonal issue should be based on them.

Furthermore, excusing the risk of breaching the Body of Workers rule, the Dispute highlights the need for all the Parties, both Managerial and Representative, to examine existing Staff/Managerial procedures to allow for the almost instant rapid responses a Cyber Attack will inevitably require. Some form of “Quick Response” mechanism may be required.

Grievance Structures.