Operating theatre assistant accused of threat to 'kick the head off' colleague awarded €5k

WRC adjudicator said the unacceptable length of the investigation at 17 months after the issue was first raised by the theatre assistant had resulted in unnecessary worry and stress for the worker. File photo

A health service provider has been ordered to pay €5,000 compensation to a theatre assistant in a hospital over its failure to fully investigate a complaint that she threatened to “kick the head off” a colleague and was creating “a toxic work environment.” 

The Workplace Relations Commission heard that the woman felt she had been left with no option but to escalate the issue to make a complaint over both her colleague’s allegations and how the issue was handled by the hospital.

The WRC ruled that the employer had a responsibility to investigate the staff member’s grievance but it did not handle the matter appropriately.

WRC adjudicator, Ewa Sobanska, said the unacceptable length of the investigation at 17 months after the issue was first raised by the theatre assistant had resulted in unnecessary worry and stress for the worker.

Ms Sobanska ordered the employer to carry out a full investigation as soon as possible and to have it completed within three months as well as ordering it to pay the woman compensation of €5,000 for delays in the case.

The theatre assistant was told at a meeting on June 9, 2020, that she was the subject of a written complaint by one of her colleagues who alleged that she had threatened her with assault by claiming she would “kick the head off her” and was creating a toxic work environment.

The WRC heard that the complainant had only recently been transferred to the theatre while the theatre assistant had worked at the hospital for 17 years with an exemplary employment record. 

The theatre assistant was extremely upset at the nature of the complaint which she claimed was completely unfounded. She told the WRC that the meeting ended without any indication as to how the issues would be progressed. 

Pursuit of investigation

The woman subsequently asked that the complaint should be the subject of a formal investigation but was informed on August 17, 2020, that the matter was closed as her colleague did not wish to pursue the case further.

She subsequently submitted a written request on September 2, 2020, that a formal investigation into the complaint be conducted.

Although the woman said she was prepared to proceed with an offer of mediation made by management, her union representative was told at the end of October 2020 that her colleague did not wish to take part in such a process.

A Siptu official, who represented the theatre assistant, said the allegations represented an absolute affront to her good name and professional reputation which if proven would constitute gross misconduct.

The official argued her employer had a clear obligation to ensure the woman was given every opportunity to defend herself and could not simply dispense with the case when the original complaint had been withdrawn.

The employer confirmed there was no complaint about the woman on file, contrary to a suggestion by her union representative. Management claimed it had been waiting for further correspondence from the woman and her trade union to progress the matter and it did not believe that local options to resolve the issue had been exhausted.

It claimed a cyberattack on its system in May 2021 meant there was no correspondence on file to show that it had communicated to the worker that she had no case to answer.

However, it apologised to the theatre assistant for the lack of communication and the fact that the closure of the matter was not issued in a timely manner due to a change in management structure.