FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : PERMANENT TSB PLC (REPRESENTED BY A&L GOODBODY SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY UNITE) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No r-135154-IR-13.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the Worker's claim that Management failed to offer sufficient redress when a complaint that he made was judged to be well-founded by an independent investigator.This dispute was referred to anAdjudication Officerfor investigation and recommendation. On the 29th October, 2016 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-
- "In these circumstances I am upholding the Worker's complaint and recommend in full and final settlement of this dispute that the respondent pay the claimant a compensatory sum of €5,250 within 4 weeks of the date of the recommendation. "
On the 6th May 2016 the Employer appealed theAdjudication Officer's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the21st July 2016.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The matter before the Court is a genuine trade dispute within the meaning of the Act.
2. The Employer's response to the findings of the report is inadequate.
3.Compensation is an appropriate remedy in this case.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Adjudication Officer had no jurisdiction to hear this complaint as it is not a genuine "trade dispute" within the meaning of the Act.
2. The findings of the investigation have been accepted by the Employer and acted upon.
3 Compensation was not recommended in the report and is not an appropriate remedy.
DECISION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the extensive written and oral submissions of both parties to this dispute and decides as follows: -
1.The matter before the Court is a trade dispute for the purposes of the Act2.The appeal is properly before the Court
3.There is merit in the Union’s claim for redress
4.There are no grounds for linking the amount of any award to the Bank’s decision to apply the terms of its Education Sponsorship Policy and reject the Claimant’s application for funding for a course of study he wished to pursue. That is a separate process that must be administered under its own rules.
5.The amount of compensation awarded by the Rights Commissioner is otherwise reasonable and proportionate and the Court affirms that award of €5250 on the basis of general redress and in full and final settlement of the matter before the Court.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
26th July 2016______________________
JKDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jason Kennedy, Court Secretary.