FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : EURO CAR PARTS IRELAND LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY MASON HAYES AND CURRAN) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY KILLEEN, SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms O'Donnell Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Recommendation No.ADJ-00019389.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker is employed with the Company as a Warehouse Assistant since the 17th July 2017. The Worker alleges he had been subjected to bullying and harassment in the workplace by his Line Manager over a period of time. He lodged a formal complaint with Human Resources on the 1st June 2018. He appealed the decision on the 24th September 2018. This appeal decision was delivered on the 17th October 2018. The Worker felt the investigation and decision were fundamentally flawed. The matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and Recommendation. On the 3rd May 2019 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-
“the worker raises several issues regarding the workplace. One arises from a grievance investigation completed in October 2018…….
.. As submitted by the employer, it is not appropriate for this adjudication to make a recommendation on any of the issues raised in this dispute.
For the reasons set out above, I do not make a recommendation in this dispute.”
The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 5th June 2019 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th August 2019.
DECISION:
This case is an appeal by a Worker of the Decision of an Adjudication Officer. While a number of issues were raised at the Adjudication hearing it was confirmed to the Court by the Worker’s representative that only one issue was on appeal to the Court.
It is the Worker’s submission that on the 1st June 2018 he made a complaint of bullying and harassment to his Employer. He recalls having one meeting with two Managers in relation to his complaint but from his perspective nothing was resolved. It was the Employer’s submission that two Managers were appointed to address his complaint on an informal basis. The Managers in question had two meetings with the Worker on the 7thand the 27thof June 2018. This was followed by a meeting with all the staff concerned on the 5thJuly 2018 which they understood resolved all the issues. The Employer’s procedures allow for an appeal within a week and no appeal was received within that time period.
The Worker submitted that he sent an appeal to that initial process on the 25thSeptember 2018. While he accepts that it was outside the time limit contained in the Employer’s procedures and that the text of what was submitted does not say it was an appeal nor does it state what in particular was being appealed, he was of the firm view that this was an appeal in accordance with the procedures. The Employer submitted to the Court that they understood the email of the 25thSeptember 2018 to be a request for a formal investigation of an issue he had with his line Manager particularly as on the 8thof October 2018 he emailed to say that all other issue he had previously raised had been resolved. The correspondence that issued from the Employer following on from the email of the 25thSeptember 2018 all refer to a formal grievance procedure and the Worker did not at any stage indicate that he believed it to be anything else.
An investigation of the issues set out by the Worker in correspondence dated 9thOctober 2018 were investigated and a report in relation to same issued on the 17thOctober 2018. It is the Worker’s position that he does not accept that report because 1) the Investigator would not accept and use a covert recording he had taken of a conversation with his Manager and 2) the report did not provide sufficient detail to enable him understand how the Investigator had reached the conclusion not to uphold any of his complaints. It was the Worker’s submission that, as in his view this was an appeal of the original complaint, he did not have to appeal this decision through the internal appeal process and therefore he referred the complaint to the WRC.
The Employer submitted that the Investigator was not obliged nor should they use a covert recording as part of the process. In relation to the content of the report, if the Worker was unhappy with the findings, the last paragraph of the letter set out the process for an appeal which the Worker had opted not to avail off.
The Court having read the submissions of the both parties and listened carefully to the oral submissions made on the day cannot accept that the failure to accept a covert recording rendered the process followed by the Employer unfair. In relation to the process followed and the report issued the Worker could not point to any failure by the Employer to follow the Company procedures, rather his issue appears to be that he disagrees with the findings of the Investigator. The Court finds that the Worker’s complaint was investigated in a fair manner and on that basis the appeal must fail. The Decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld.
The Court so finds.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Louise O'Donnell
TH______________________
9 September 2019Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Therese Hickey, Court Secretary.