FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HSE DUBLIN NORTH EAST - AND - IRISH NURSES ORGANISATION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Discounting of sick leave, retention of a specialist allowance and compensation.
BACKGROUND:
2. The three Workers concerned have worked as nurses at Cavan General Hospital since 1975, 1977 and 1998 respectively. They commenced working in the Endoscopy Unit between 1998 and 2001. These posts attract a specialist allowance.
Following the appointment of a Manager to this service in June 2004 and until 2006 a series of incidents occurred which caused grave concern to the three Workers concerned. In February 2006 the Workers were certified unfit for duty.
In May 2006 mediation commenced, at which time the Workers remained on sick leave due to work related stress. This process failed to resolve matters and a formal investigation was then requested under the Dignity at Work Policy.
Meanwhile at return to work meetings it was agreed that the three Workers would be assigned to alternative work locations but would retain their location allowance, pending the outcome of the investigation
The INO, on behalf of the Workers, subsequently lodged a claim on behalf of the three Workers seeking discounting of sick leave, the continued payment of the specialist allowance and compensation for the alleged failure of Management in their duty of care.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 5th June, 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17th September, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Union contends that the Workers period of sick leave and the delay in their return to work was caused by Management's failures to respond to the Workers complaints. For this reason the Union is seeking to have the period of sick leave discounted.
2. The three Workers continued to receive the location allowance when they were redeployed to an alternative location on their return to work. The Union is now seeking that the HSE continue to pay the allowance on a red-circled basis.
3. The Union contends that the Workers suffered an extensive period of stress due to the alleged failure of the HSE to act appropriately. The Union maintains that the Workers should be compensated for the undue stress suffered.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Management maintains that there is ample evidence of engagement with the Workers both before and after they commenced sick leave in February 2006, and, indeed, of efforts to resolve issues informally through the appointment of the external mediator.
2. Management do not agree to the continuation of payment of the location allowance to the three Workers. The agreement was that the allowance be continued until mediation concluded.
3. It is the position of Management that renewed energies should focus on empowering the Workers to move on and that a proactive response should be adopted by both parties.
RECOMMENDATION:
In its consideration of this case the Court has taken account of the report of the independent investigators into the allegations of bullying made by the Complainants. It is noted that the report concluded that the Complainants were not in fact bullied. In that respect the case can be distinguished from other cases in which the Court recommended concessions of claims similar to those made in this case.
It is noted that the investigators found serious deficiencies in the manner in which the Complainants complaints were handled by Management. The criticism of the Management response should be fully addressed by the HSE and measures should be put in place to ensure that such deficiencies are fully and adequately addressed.
It is noted, however, that for the reasons stated in their report, the investigators concluded that a better management response would not have avoided the conflict giving rise to this claim.
In all the circumstances the Court is not persuaded that a basis exists upon which it could recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
28th September, 2009______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.