Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Nurse

A Healthcare Provider

Representatives

Niall O Sullivan Psychiatric Nurses Assoc. (PNA)

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 - 00001450

12/06/2023

The Worker raised a complaint under the Employers Dignity at Work (“DAW”) policy in September 2020 regarding two interactions which arose in that same month.  

It took the Employer over two years to initiate an investigation and the lack of investigation was referred to the WRC under this act. Following that process an independent third party investigation commenced and a report issued in May 2023.

The Worker has raised a number of issues regarding that report. 

The Worker’s complaint related to two interactions.

The first is when he directed that a particular bay in a ward be cleaned to the “covid” standard. A senior member of staff on that ward refused the task and was aggressive towards him.

A couple of days later he attended the same ward in full PPE in his role as a CNM. The same member of staff assigned to that ward and was rude and aggressive to him.

After these incidents a number of witness statements were taken.

When the investigation proceeded the Worker referred the investigator to these statements. However the Employer didn’t facilitate them in taking up these statements. There were a number of witnesses who refused to engage in the investigation.

The Worker believes if the terms of reference had been followed and the report commissioner had actually supervised whether they had been complied with, the report would have addressed his concerns.

 The Employer at first tried to get the Worker to engage in mediation with the other party. When he decided not to do so they engaged an external investigator to begin a detailed investigation.

 The investigator issued a draft report and invited comments from the parties. The Worker was given extra time to provide his comments. The investigator fully engaged with these comments and addressed them in her report. They did not alter the findings.

After the report issued the Worker challenged the outcome with the Employer. In particular he noted the 2 people declined to be interviewed. The Employer followed up on this and confirmed that one of the two had a family emergency at the time and was unavailable. The other had not in fact been a witness to the dispute so declined to be interviewed on the basis that they could not add anything.

The written statements were not given to the commissioner of the investigation as such he did not know of their existence when he engaged with the investigator. The Employer accepts that this is an issue.

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

The issue of delay has already been dealt with in a previous recommendation and the worker has been compensated.

Having reviewed the investigation report it appears to me to be comprehensive and considered. On the facts before the investigator there was little scope for her to come to different conclusions.

There was an issue in that the Employer had failed to furnish the investigator with all the relevant documentation even after they sought it out. The documentation in question involved witness statements compiled shortly after one of the interactions. These were obviously important and should have been provided to the investigator. The Employer acknowledged this in the hearing.

While these statements may have altered the report, I do not think it would have had any practical difference to the parties. The Worker may have been entitled to refer the matter for investigation and refuse mediation but that does not mean that was a reasonable course of action.  His complaint was essentially a matter of management. The Worker is a CNM 3. This is quite a senior role. He felt that a member of staff he was overseeing was insubordinate on two occasions. While that issue needed to be resolved it was never going to be dealt with by way of formal investigation.

The Worker has indicated he now has a functional working relationship with the person he complained about. Both parties agree that reopening matters would not be appropriate. The Worker has already received compensation for the delay in arranging the report. I do not think it is appropriate to recommend further compensation.

In the circumstances I do not believe I can be of any further assistance to the parties.