FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ALLIED FOODS LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation r-073610-ir-08/JC.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the Worker's claim that he was bullied and harassed by a manager, and that the Company failed to investigate his complaint in a satisfactory manner. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 22nd October, 2009 the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-
- “I recommend that if the matters referred to in my findings at paragraph 3 above remain unresolved as they apply to the claimant and other employees the Management and SIPTU should consider addressing them in accordance with the agreed industrial relations procedures.
In relation to my findings in paragraphs 1 and 4 I recommend that Management and SIPTU review the Company Grievance & Disciplinary Procedures and processes as recommended in Regulation 4(2) of S.I. 146 of 2000 and that they also review the Bullying & Harassment Procedure to ensure that it complies with the Health & Safety Authority Code of Practice for Employers and Employees on the prevention and resolution of Bullying at Work and LRC Code of Practice on Procedures for Addressing Bullying in the Workplace.
In recognition of (i) the unacceptable nature of the delay in issuing the written warning to the claimant under the Disciplinary Procedure and (ii) the failure in the Bullying Investigation to give the claimant a copy of the interview notes of the meetings with the Line Manager Mr. AF; the General Manager; Mr. LM and the HR Officer Mr. WG and (ii) the failure to notify the claimant of his right of Appeal I recommend that the respondent give the claimant two week’s additional paid annual leave at a time agreed between Management and SIPTU on behalf of the claimant, in either this leave year or next”.
- “I recommend that if the matters referred to in my findings at paragraph 3 above remain unresolved as they apply to the claimant and other employees the Management and SIPTU should consider addressing them in accordance with the agreed industrial relations procedures.
3. 1.Once it was made aware of the Worker's complaint the Company acted as any reasonable employer would be expected to.
2. The Company carried out a full and thorough investigation into all the allegations which were raised.
3.The incidents which Worker complained of did not constitute bullying or harassment.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Worker was bullied and harassed solely because he raised a legitimate health and safety concern about his forklift licence.
2. The Worker believes that the Company's failure to investigate the behaviour of its manager means that there should now be an independent investigation of the facts.
3. The Rights Commissioner did not fully address the financial loss which the Company's actions caused the Worker to suffer.
DECISION:
The matter before the Court concerns joint appeals by both the Worker and the Company against a Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation which recommended that the Claimant should be given two additional weeks’ annual leave in recognition of certain misgivings surrounding his claim regarding the Company’s investigation into his complaints of bullying and harassment.
Having considered the oral and written submissions of both parties, the Court concurs with the findings and Recommendation of the Right Commissioner and upholds her Recommendation. Therefore, both appeals fail.
Furthermore, the Court notes that both sides are anxious to improve the working relationship between the Claimant and a named Manager. The Human Resources Manager offered to assist the parties in that regard and suggested that a meeting take place to iron out any perceived difficulties. The Court recommends that the Human Resources Manager should proceed to set up the meeting suggested in her letter dated 29th September 2008 to facilitate the parties going forward in order to improve the working environment. This meeting should take place as soon as possible.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
17th June, 2010______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.