LCR22890

Complaint under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

BACKGROUND:

The Worker referred this case to the Labour Court on 19 September 2023 in accordance with Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 13 December 2023.

RECOMMENDATION:

This matter comes before the Court as a request by the worker to the Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 to investigate her trade dispute with her employer and to issue a Recommendation under Section 68 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946. She has, in accordance with the statute, undertaken to accept the Recommendation of the Court. No such requirement to accept the Recommendation of the Court rested upon the employer and no such undertaking has been given.

The employer did not attend the hearing of the Court.

In summary, the worker made a complaint of sexual harassment against a colleague. That complaint was made under the Dignity at Work policy and procedures of the employer. The employer, in accordance with the procedures in place in the employment, investigated that complaint and it was upheld.

Following the completion of that procedure and the upholding of her complaint, the worker contends that she was required to continue working with and reporting to the person found responsible for her sexual harassment. She contended that she was not allowed to work remotely. She submitted that this experience amounted to bullying and harassment.

The Court has no submission from the employer on these matters.

At the hearing the worker confirmed, through her trade union, that she made no complaint under the policy and procedures of the employer in relation to bullying and harassment as regards her experience following the completion of procedures in her complaint of sexual harassment. The trade union confirmed to the Court that it had advised her that she would be ‘wasting her time’ making a complaint under that policy.

The submission of the worker that she was forced to continue working with and reporting to a colleague who had sexually harassed her raises concerns for the Court. The concerns of the Court are not informed by any submission of the employer and arise solely from the submission of the worker.

The Court notes that arrangements have now been devised which will involve the worker reporting to a different person and her working remotely. The worker, through her trade union, expressed satisfaction with these arrangements as a means of moving into the future but did raise concerns as regards any possible change to these arrangements in the future.

Having regard to all of the circumstances the Court recommends:

• That the policy in the employment designed to protect against bullying and harassment should be utilised by the worker to raise any complaint she might have as regards alleged behaviour of the employer since the conclusion of procedures employed to deal with her complaint of sexual harassment and which she believes amounts to bullying and harassment.
• That the employer should acknowledge that the worker has outlined to the Court her experience since the conclusion of procedures implemented to deal with her complaint of sexual harassment and that her experience, prima facie, has raised concerns for the Court. That acknowledgement should involve a payment of €1,000 to the worker without prejudice but as a gesture of good will and in the interest of good industrial relations.
• That any future change to the worker’s reporting or remote working arrangements should be undertaken with sensitivity and with full regard to her experience of sexual harassment in the workplace.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Kevin Foley
DC	______________________
20 December 2023	Chairman