Case Number: ADJ-00009406. Workplace Relations Commission

• Docket Number: ADJ-00009406
• Date: 08 August 2018
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission
• Parties: Patrick Jordan V Irish Prison Service.
• Respondent: Irish Prison Service

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00009406

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Patrick Jordan	Irish Prison Service

Representatives None Aoife Carroll, BL instructed by the Chief State Solicitor’s Office

Complaint:

Act	Complaint Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998	CA-00012113-001	25th June 2017

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 13th December 2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham

Procedure:

On the 25th June 2017, the complainant referred a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission pursuant to the Employment Equality Act. The complaint was scheduled for adjudication on the 13th December 2017. The complainant attended the adjudication. Aoife Carroll, BL instructed by the Chief State Solicitor’s Office represented the respondent. Two witnesses gave evidence on its behalf.

In accordance with Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

Background:

The complainant asserts that he was discriminated against on grounds of disability when the respondent refused to accept periods of sick leave as an injury at work arising from workplace stress and bullying; the respondent denies the claim.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The complainant outlined that he incurred sick leave because of work-related stress and bullying on various dates. He sought for this sick leave to be considered ‘injury on duty’, thereby not adversely affecting his sick leave record. He said that written allegations were made against him in December but only provided to him as a result to the FOI request. The complainant outlined that the respondent requests an officer to obtain a psychiatric consultation for ‘injury at work’ sick leave arising from work-related stress. A GP’s report was not sufficient. The complainant referred to the Circular on mediation in the public sector, but the respondent refused to implement this. He wanted this matter mediated by the Workplace Relations Commission but the respondent withdrew from the process at short notice. The complainant outlined that he has sought further additional medical documentation from his doctors in reply to the respondent’s request. He also sought referral to the respondent’s Chief Medical Officer. He had not sought certification of the January and February 2017 absences because he thought he could soldier on, but the incidents went on beyond that. He did not go to a doctor as he genuinely believed that a stiff upper lip would lead to this being resolved. He said that one tries to put things to bed quickly and to avoid making mountains of mole hills. The complainant spoke to the respondent and a designated support officer, who was later transferred. He described the respondent’s support as scant. He was not asked if he was OK and it was clear that his work was suffering. He had to fight tooth and nail to get the copy of the complaint even though the dogs in the street knew of the complaint. He did not know what the formal procedure provided for but natural justice meant that the complaint should have been forwarded to him. The complaint was not actioned at all and he heard only the “whispers on the street”. The complainant said that he has now dealt with the demons, but they would have been dealt with sooner had the respondent acted better. He now wanted to put things to bed. The complainant outlined that he had a very bad case of work-related stress ten years ago following a very serious incident with a couple of prisoners. He was diagnosed and out for some time. He commented that this was thankfully now well and truly healed. The complainant said that he wanted periods of absence in 2017 to be recorded as injury on duty. He could not say whether a respondent officer was previously recorded as injured on duty due to inter-personnel difficulties. The complainant compiled the catalogue of incidents, which denigrated his standing in the job amongst staff and prisoners. When the colleague ignored the complainant bidding her “good morning”, this made prisoners wonder what was going on. There were rumours that diminished his standing amongst colleagues. This continued unabated and this was why he took this case. In cross-examination, items of correspondence were put to the complainant. He was referred to the colleague’s complaint of the 18th December 2016. This colleague was informed that her complaint did not fall within the Dignity at Work policy. In reply, the complainant said he was not aware of this at the time. It was put to the complainant that he took uncertified sick leave on 25th January and the 28th February 2017 and he did not inform the respondent why he took this sick leave; he agreed that this was the case. It was put to the complainant that the letter of the 4th May 2017 was the first time that he raised the sick leave issue. It was put to the complainant that on the 14th March 2017 the respondent informed him that the complaint made against him did not fall within the Dignity of Work policy; he replied that this letter does not address his issues. It was put to the complainant that the letter of the 16th May 2017 replied to his letter of the 4th May 2017 and stated that the two days of sick leave could not be considered as “injury on duty”. The complainant said that there were various letters in May and June regarding the issues of sick leave and the Dignity at Work complaint. He was not sure if he replied to the respondent’s letter of the 6th June 2017. He was so traumatised that he did not reformulate his complaint. It was put to the complainant that his complaint of bullying was vague and imprecise; he replied that his submission was very clear, giving dates and times. While he did not take this up with a named member of the respondent Staff and Corporate Services Directorate, he raised it with others. It was put to the complainant that the later correspondence deals with other days of sick leave, which...