LCR22716

1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No. ADJ-00034835 CA-00045916-001

BACKGROUND:

2. The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 7 December 2022 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

On 26 July 2021 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-

“I am satisfied that it was reasonable for the Council to initiate a formal investigation into SU’s allegations of bullying and I find that there are no procedural failings with the investigation itself. In the interest of fairness to all the parties, I recommend that the investigation is concluded.

I accept that it was reasonable for SEO to be concerned about his reputation when he was transferred to a different geographical region in June 2020. I find however, that, as he moved to a more senior position in another local authority, no lasting damage has been done to his reputation and I recommend that no award of compensation is made.”

A Labour Court hearing took place on 10 February 2023.

DECISION:

The trade dispute before the Court arises from a series of complaints made against the worker before the Court by a colleague in 2019. Prior to the completion of internal processes arising from those complaints the complainant retired, and the investigator appointed by the employer confirmed that he would not, because of pressure of work and on legal advice to him, be able to complete his investigation.

The Court has given very careful consideration to the comprehensive written and oral submissions of the parties.

The Court was advised that the parties before it had agreed the means to conclude all processes arising from the complaint made against the worker before the Court. No Recommendation is required of the Court in that regard.

The remaining matter for the Court is a claim for compensation in the amount of €25,000 made by the worker against whom a complaint had been made by a colleague.

He based that claim on

• 
  • what he contended were procedural deficiencies in the manner in which the complaint against him had been handled by the Council

  • the fact that the Council altered his area of responsibility following the original complaint. It was common case that the original complainant and two other managers against whom complaints had been made also had their responsibilities altered.

  • the manner in which his appointment to an acting position had terminated

  • The manner in which the Public Appointments Service had, following the completion of a public appointment process, appointed him to a permanent position in another Council rather the Respondent Council.

The Court is concerned that the manner of appointment of the investigator by the Respondent following the receipt of the original complaint does not meet the standards of fairness and transparency required in terms of dealing with a complaint against the worker. The Court, noting that all parties are satisfied with the manner of conclusion of all complaints against the worker, recommends that this frailty in the procedure adopted in the Council should be addressed by a gesture of goodwill which would also be reflective of the time taken to bring this matter to a conclusion.

The Court therefore recommends that the Council should make a payment of €5,000 to the worker in full and final settlement of all matters in dispute.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Kevin Foley
OC	______________________
16 February 2023	Chairman