Defence Forces watchdog reports rise in bullying complaints
2020 Had Received Forces Five Than Year In Farrell/rollingnews The Defence Watchdog Said Of Whole More It First Of The Plaints Months Eamonn This Picture: Ie
The Defence Forces watchdog said it had received more complaints in the first five months of this year than the whole of 2020.
The ombudsman said he was also seeing more bullying-type complaints, both in 2020 and so far in 2021 – which he puts down to greater awareness and improved reporting structures.
Retired judge Alan Mahon also said there was an increase last year in cases from officers, compared to privates and NCOs (non-commissioned officers) and this was “significantly more apparent” in the early months of this year.
In his annual report 2020, the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces (ODF) said: “Referrals in the first five months of 2021 indicate a significant increase in 2021 compared to 2020. So far this year, 27 reports have issued (compared to 25 for the whole of 2020).”
Reports are issued following an investigation and typically contain recommendations to the Minister for Defence, who in most cases accepts them.
Mr Mahon said more than half of referrals in 2020 related to issues concerning selection of promotion competitions or courses.
He said there had been an increase in the number of “bullying-type complaints” coming through, both in 2020 and the early months of 2021.
“I believe this is not necessarily because there is an increase in the incidences of bullying in the Defence Forces in recent times, rather it is because of a greater awareness generally of such activity and of the availability of a more receptive and sensitive grievance process when it occurs,” he said.
“This is a positive development in the sense that it creates a more open Defence Forces and a greater confidence in the internal Defence Forces investigation system to investigate and resolve such matters, when they occur.”
The ombudsman received 80 notifications of complaints in 2020, a 22% drop on 2019. Most complaints are subsequently resolved internally.
There were 15 new cases referred for full investigation in 2020, compared to 17 the previous year.
In addition, 14 cases were carried forward into 2020 from the previous year, bringing the total to 29 cases.
Of the 25 cases concluded and reports issued, 11 related to the naval service, seven involved in the air corps, four involved the army 2 Brigade and three related to the training centre.
Some 15 were in the non-selection for promotion category, five related to maladministration (including performance appraisal and discharge) and three were marked as ‘interpersonal issues’ (such as personality conflict/inappropriate behaviour or bullying).
Last month, Defence Minister Simon Coveney announced he was setting up an independent review on the effectiveness of measures in the Defence Forces to combat bullying, discrimination and harassment.
This followed earlier meetings he held with the Women of Honour group – comprising serving and retired members of the Defence Forces – which detailed allegations of sexism, bullying, sexual assault and rape spanning three decades.
The minister, along with the new Chief of Staff, Lt General Sean Clancy, also announced the establishment of a confidential contact person, to work with complainants.
An anonymous case study of alleged bullying related to a complainant who identified nine separate incidents between mid-2018 and mid-2019.
The report of the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces (ODF) said: “The nature of the allegations included misinformation relating to the complainant’s work, the disclosure of confidential medical information, the complainant being advised that he was not wanted in his unit, the alteration of the complainant’s duty rota to his detriment and a Facebook post about the complainant of a derogatory nature.”
Five of the complaints were investigated internally in the Defence Forces, where the appointed military investigating officer (MIO) found the Facebook post complained of was a breach of the Defence Force’s social media policy, but did not constitute “bullying”.
He rejected the other complaints, essentially because of a “lack of evidence”, the report said.
The MIO concluded: “When considered in unison, this complaint is NOT considered valid as there is no direct evidence of a pattern of repeated inappropriate behaviour on the part of Cpl N and Cpl O’S. In this sense, the complainant has NOT been wronged and therefore the redress sought is NOT appropriate. A single act of inappropriate behaviour, as has been perpetrated by Cpl N (complaint 8), does not constitute bullying.”
The ODF did not uphold the four complaints investigated by him, other than to agree with the MIO’s finding on the Facebook post.
“The final complaint concerns the allegations that Cpl N wrote derogatory words about him on Facebook,” the ODF report said. “Undoubtedly, the words written were quite disturbing and suggested that the complainant was unwelcome in his workplace. Cpl N admitted (to the MIO) that he was the author of this statement.
"The MIO’s report does not provide any explanation from Cpl N for posting these words, and Cpl N himself has declined to provide me with any additional information.”
The ODF said the Defence Forces’ definition of “bullying” stated the behaviour must be “repeated” and that while an isolated incident of such behaviour “may be an affront to dignity at work”, it was not considered to be bullying.
The ombudsman said the MIO went on to determine the single allegation established as against a named colleague (ie the Facebook post) did not constitute “bullying”, notwithstanding the fact “it was entirely inappropriate and lacked any hint of justification”.
The ODF made the following recommendation to the officer in command and the general officer commanding: “I recommend that the current OIC of the [identified unit] undertake an immediate review of inter-personal relationships of [the unit’s] personnel to establish if there currently exists evidence of same being less than harmonious, and, if they are conducive to a reasonable working environment, and to report thereon to his/her GOC, and thereafter for the GOC to take appropriate action in relation thereto.”