FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BALLINAMORE CHILDCARE LTD (REPRESENTED BY CON O'LEARY & CO SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY MR JAMES DORAN B.L., INSTRUCTED BY BUTLER MONK SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal Of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-111578-IR-11/SR.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns the Worker's appeal ofRights Commissioner's Recommendation R-111578-IR-11/SR.The dispute specifically to the Worker's claim that a report on the findings which concluded from an internal investigation which was carried out on foot of complaints alleged against the Worker, was not compiled in a fair and impartial manner. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 22nd May, 2012, the Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation as follows:
"I am satisfied that the documents and proposed agreements issued by the Employer on 17th January, 2012, represents major concessions by the Employer to meet all of the requirements of the Claimant. I am satisfied that these documents and proposed agreement represent the best way forward and a reasonable basis on which to resolve the matters- and I recommend that the Claimant accept them as a full and final settlement of all matters.
I so recommend".
On the 28th June, 2012 the Worker appealed the Rights Commissioners Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 24th October, 2012.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1. The internal investigation was not carried out in accordance with best practice.
2. The report on the internal investigation has had a detrimental effect on the Worker in terms of her professional status and reputation.
3. The Worker has suffered a significant financial loss and is seeking compensation as a result.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer contends that the internal investigation was carried out professionally and in line with procedure.
2. The Employer asserts that only one copy of the investigation report remains securely on file and is not available for others to view.
3. The Employer has made numerous attempts to resolve outstanding issues with the Worker.
DECISION:
It is clear to the Court, from the submissions and other documents filed in the case that, that the working relationship between the Claimant and her Employer had deteriorated significantly arising from the facts giving rise to this dispute. It is noted that the Claimant's maternity leave has come to an end and that she now proposes to return to work. In its approach to this case the Court's primary objective is to facilitate the Claimant and her Employer in restoring a viable employer / employee relationship and in putting the various occurrences and issues in dispute behind them.
It is clear that that the Claimant has a major issue with the content of the report referred to in the course of the hearing and wishes to have it expunged. The Court also notes the Employer's insistence that this report was properly prepared and that fair procedures were observed in its compilation.
Having regard to the lapse of time since this report was compiled, and the fact that no disciplinary action was taken on foot of its content, the Court recommends that the Employer takes the necessary steps to have all remaining copies of this report destroyed and that no fresh copies be created in the future.
The Court further recommends that the parties meet at the earliest possible date to discuss the terms of the Claimant's return to work. No effort should be spared in trying to reach agreement on those issues. If, however, the parties are unable to reach agreement they should again consider a resolution along the lines envisaged in the draft agreement referred to by the Rights Commissioner in his recommendation.
The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is varied accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
16th November 2012______________________
SCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.