FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : KERRY FOODS PLC T/A KERRY FOODS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms O'Donnell |
1. Investigation of a complaint of bullying.
BACKGROUND:
2. UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
The Worker argued that the Company should engage an independent third party to investigate a formal complaint of bullying made by the Worker against a member of the Management Team.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
The Company argued that there are sufficient resources available within the Company to investigate the Worker's complaint of bullying in a fair and equitable manner. Only in exceptional circumstances is a suitably qualified external third party nominated by the Company to investigate a formal complaint.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered in detail the written and oral submissions of the parties in this case.
This matter before the Court relates only to the question of whether an investigation into a complaint of bullying made by the claimant should be investigated by an external person or whether it should be investigated by a member of the management of the employer.
The employer has a clearly articulated policy as regards bullying and that policy sets out procedures for investigation of complaints. That procedure is very similar to the procedure set out by the Workplace Relations Commission in its Code of Practice on Addressing Bullying in the Workplace (the Code). Both the employer’s procedure and the Code make provision for investigation of a complaint by a member of management and both also identify that such investigations can be carried out by external parties.
The claimant in this case clarified at the hearing that in his view all members of management of the employer suffer from a conflict of interest in carrying out an investigation of his complaint of bullying. The claimant has not set out any sound basis for such a conclusion.
The Court believes that the fact that the claimant’s complaint made in September 2015 has not yet been investigated is unsatisfactory. The Code lays emphasis on the value of carrying out an investigation as quickly as possible and in the Court’s view the Code’s encouragement in that regard should, in the interest of all parties, be taken seriously. In this case the delay is exclusively related to a failure to agree the identity of the person to carry out the investigation.
The Court cannot support a contention that all members of management of the employer are conflicted to the degree that they could not carry out an impartial investigation of the claimant’s complaint. The Court notes that the employer offered three different members of management as investigators. Most recently the employer offered to appoint a member of management from another site unconnected with the site where the claimant is employed to carry out the investigation. The Court considers that offer as a reasonable response to the issues raised by the claimant and considers that the claimant should accept that offer.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
JD______________________
25 July 2016Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Deegan, Court Secretary.