Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Professional

A Health Care Service

Representatives

SIPTU

Employer

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 - 00003074

03/09/2024

The Worker was stood down from duties to allow for an investigation into an incident in April 2020.

It was his dispute that he should be compensated for the loss of earnings and promotional opportunity during the time it took the Employer to conduct the investigation to the time he returned to his full duties.

It was the Worker’s submission that there was inordinate delay on the part of the Employer to investigate the incident in April 2020 up to the time he returned to his full duties on 15 August 2024 resulting in a loss of significant loss of earnings.

It was the Worker’s submission that he was next in line on a Supervisor’s panel but instead it was re-advertised with a new panel formed. The Worker submitted that he was not entitled to the €1,000 bonus offered those who worked during the Covid19 pandemic despite meting all the criteria.

The Worker described having menial tasks to do despite the demands on the service as a result of the Covid19 pandemic.

In response to the previous WRC Recommendation, it was submitted that was an entirely different claim where it related to the Employer’s delay in dealing with the investigation. No compensation was awarded in that dispute.

It objected to the Employer’s objection on the basis it was out of time.

It was the Employer’s submission that this matter was subject to a Recommendation from the Workplace Relations Commission on 29 March 2023 and where it was not appealed to the Labour Court it has already been addressed. An objection was raised on this basis.

It was further submitted that the Worker did not incur loss of earnings and presented a table of income earned from 2019 to 2024.

An outline of his tasks during the period he was assigned to base duties was provided by the Employer.

It was submitted by the Employer that all workplace investigations were stayed during the period of Covid19 which was a reason for the delay. This applied across the service and not limited to the Worker.

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

The Employer’s objection was out of time where it was notified by letter dated 5 September 2024 of the dispute but did not respond until 15 November 2024. This was outside the 21 day time limit to objection provided for under Section 36(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 and consequently rejected.

The Recommendation of 29 March 2023 expressly stated no compensation for the delay was recommended. This Recommendation of the Workplace Relations Commission must be respected. Consequently, I am only willing to consider events after the date of the Recommendation, i.e., 29 March 2023 up until the date this dispute was received on 03 September 2024. 

Therefore, in considering the delay there are two key points; the final investigation report was issued on 28 April 2023, but the disciplinary outcome did not occur until 13 July 2023. No reason for this delay was given. Where no action was taken by the Employer, the Employee through his Union had to follow up by letter of 16 August 2023 on the Worker’s direction to attend training.  It is accepted that the Worker attended training February 2024 until June 2024 when he successful completed his examinations.

The overall delay in investigating due to the Covid19 pandemic appears to have been counterproductive. This Worker, an experienced professional at the very front line of medical treatment for sick and vulnerable people was bound to carry out basic tasks was an enormous waste of a valuable resource. While it is appreciated the service was under unprecedent pressure, the completion of an investigation into such an individual ought to have been of the utmost priority and return the Worker to his role, as was the case in this situation. With the exception of the necessary training from February to June 2024 and time spent as the third person, I do find the period from the preliminary report on 11 April 2023 to the date the training commenced in February 2024, as been an unreasonable delay on the part of the Employer.

This Worker has yet to receive authorisation from the Medical Director of the Employer to resume his duties despite been cleared to return to full time duties in August 2024 should be reviewed as a matter of priority.

In summary, it is recommended that once a sanction of training is decided, the Employer must make every effort to implement a disciplinary outcome to allow a Worker return to work as quickly as possible. Further delays in a Worker’s returning to their full duties can reasonably be considered as wholly unfair ongoing or additional sanction.

It is recommended that: -

1.       The Employer compensates the Worker in the sum of €4,500 for the delay from 28 April 2023 until the date he resumed his full duties 16 August 2024 while discounting the 3.5 months he was retraining. It should be noted that this compensation is for delay only and not loss of earnings. 

2.       Within 6 weeks of the date of this Recommendation that the Worker be considered for formal authorisation to practice by the Medical Director.

IR - Delay