FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : HSE DUBLIN MID-LEINSTER - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner Recommendation No: r-101144-ir-10/JW.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case concerns an appeal by the employer of a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No: r-101144-ir-10/JW. The issue concerns the posting up of an inappropriate graphic in a common area and the method by which management investigated the matter after a complaint was made by a member of staff. Management's position is that the offending document was removed as soon as it was brought to its attention and that the subsequent investigation was in line with its policies and procedures. The worker's position is that management failed in its duty of care by not dealing with the matter more expeditiously.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. His findings and recommendation issued on the 20th October 2011 and found that the investigation was flawed and recommended that the worker be paid €3,000.
On the 10th November 2011, the employer appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 14th March, 2012.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.Management conducted its investigation in line with its policies and procedures and acted immediately when the matter was brought to its attention.It is unreasonable that compensation is awarded when the offending document was removed within two days of it being brought to management's attention.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Management did not carry out an immediate investigation and failed to remove the graphic in a timely fashion. This issue has caused a great deal of personal stress to the worker as a result of management's actions.
DECISION:
The case comes before the Court pursuant to Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969.
It is common case that the graphic that was posted in the staff room was inappropriate and offensive to the complainant. The issue in dispute is the manner in which the complaint made by the Complainant was dealt with by the HSE.
The Court finds that Ms Woulfe dealt with the matter in a very prompt and professional manner when the complaint was made and the graphic brought to her attention.
The Court, however, finds that the processing of the complaint by the HSE thereafter was inadequate, incomplete and untimely. It further finds that some of the correspondence relating to the complaint contained inappropriate references to sick leave procedures that could have been interpreted as an attempt to warn the complainant off proceeding with the matter further. In this regard the Court accepts that this was not the intention but that may not have been clear to the complainant at the relevant time.
The Court takes the view that all complaints that are made to an employer must be taken seriously and properly investigated. Failure to do so does a disservice to the organisation and an injustice to the worker making the complaint. Furthermore, it discourages workers from making complaints for fear that they will not be taken seriously or properly processed and investigated.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation is measured and appropriate in this case.
The Court rejects the appeal and upholds the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
This is the decision of the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
17th April, 2012.______________________
AH.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.