Case Number: ADJ-00023852. Workplace Relations Commission

• Docket Number: ADJ-00023852
• Hearing Date: 08 January 2020
• Date: 01 May 2020
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission
• Respondent: Human health & Social Work

ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00023852

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	Community RGN	Human health & Social Work

Representatives Deirdre Canty SIPTU Maria Daly Employee Relations Manager

Complaint(s):

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969	CA-00030506-001	27/08/2019

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 08/01/2020

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim O'Connell

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute

The complaint is employed by the respondent since 1985. On the 9th September 2016 the complainant received a phone call from the respondent to say that they had received a complaint made against her and she was invited the complainant to attend a meeting and to bring along her Trade union Representative. The complainant was not given details of the nature of the complaint other than it was about “You having a Voodoo Doll”.

A meeting was held on the 4th October 2016 at this meeting the complainant was informed the complaint was made in early August 2016. The Trade Union contacted the respondent by email dated the 21st October 2016 requesting that the complainant be given full documentation for the investigation including a copy of the original complaint.

On the 11th November 2017 the Trade Union received the letter of complaint dated the 9th August 2016 along with notes taken at the meeting with the complainant on the 4th October where the complainant issued her response and confirming in detail that these allegations were unfounded and that she didn’t have a “Voodoo Doll” and that the complainant didn’t know what a “Voodoo Doll” was prior to the meeting.

The Trade Union requested the matter be dealt with in a timely fashion. The respondent stated that the matter would be dealt with under the informal process of the grievance procedure and that the trade Union would be kept in informed

The Trade Union submitted a number of emails from the 13th September 2017 to the end of November 2017 and the complainant did not received any contact form the respondent.

On the 27th February 2019 the complainant received correspondence from the respondent stating that stage 1 of the grievance procedure would be heard on the 14th March 2019. The complainant attended with her Trade Union representative. The notes of the meeting were issued on the 10th April 2019 and the amended notes returned to the respondent on the 18th April 2019. It was submitted that following a phone call, the respondent would issue a draft report by the 5th July 2019. The Trade Union were dissatisfied with the prolonged delay in the entire process. No further contact was received from the respondent and the matter was referred to the WRC.

The draft report was finally issued on the 25th November 2019 where it stated that that complaint could not be upheld based on the evidence. The respondent recommended training in relation to dealing with complaints/grievances, that they should be dealt with promptly.

The Trade Union submitted while welcoming the findings, the entire process was unnecessarily delayed by the respondent, it was submitted that justice delayed, is justice denied.

The Union were seeking compensation for the unnecessary and...