Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90429 Case Number: LCR13037 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: T.B.F. THOMPSON (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. S.T. 93/90 regarding the alleged harrassment of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having listened to the submissions of the parties is
seriously disturbed that the relationship between the Management
and an individual worker could have deteriorated to the extent
indicated to the Court particularly where it is recognised the
worker concerned is a good worker.
It is the view of the Court that every effort should be made to
improve those relationships and to this end discussions should
take place between the member and the Management as a matter of
urgency. Should it be considered of benefit the Court is prepared
to make available an Industrial Relations Officer to assist the
parties in these discussions.
With regard to the issue of recognition the Court notes this issue
was not dealt with by the Rights Commissioner. The Court notes
the complainant is the only member of the Union in the Company.
In the circumstances the Court recommends that the Union be given
rights of representation on behalf of this member.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90429 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13037
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: T.B.F. THOMPSON (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION)
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. S.T. 93/90 regarding the alleged harrassment of
a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is owned by Cement Roadstone Limited. In 1980,
the worker concerned commenced employment as a clerk-typist. She
and other workers became members of a Trade Union in 1986. The
Company does not recognise the Union and states that it has not
received any request for trade union recognition. The worker
concerned claims that she has been subjected to harassment since
she joined the Union. The worker also claimed that she was due a
day's pay as the Company refused to allow her to resume duty on
her return from sick leave. Her complaint was the subject of a
Rights Commissioner's investigation on 7th June, 1990. His
recommendation is as follows:-
"I have no hesitation in recommending that the Company accepts
that it must allow employees their constitutional right to
representation of their choice in matters affecting their
employment particularly in matters of discipline.
It is not my function or intention to enter the field of
Trade Union recognition. That is a matter entirely for the
parties. The Union has the right under section 20(1) and (3)
of the 1969 Act to have the Labour Court investigate the
matter if it so wishes.
I do not think it would be helpful to make a recommendation
in relation to the charges of harassment as there are direct
and serious conflicts of evidence and it would not help a
return to normality in the working relationship. In the
interests of such a return I have asked the Company to pay
the day's pay outstanding and it has readily agreed to do so
without prejudice."
On 24th July, 1990, the Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation to the Labour Court on the grounds that it did not
deal with the harassment complaint and on the grounds that while
the Rights Commissioner recommended that representation should be
granted, the Company still refuses to meet the Union. The Court
heard the appeal on 18th September, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Rights Commissioner did not deal with the harassment
case as he was hoping that a normal working relationship could
be re-established. Harassment continues as before (details
supplied to the Court). Workers are afraid to talk to the
appellant in case it jeopardises their own jobs. The
appellant who is now the only member of the Union is in an
office with very little to do and with no contact from any
source. Unless things change she will be forced to leave the
Company and claim constructive dismissal.
2. The Rights Commissioner recommended that representation of
choice should be granted to all employees but the Company
still refuses to meet the Union.
3. He also recommended that one day's pay be granted. The
Company allowed the day's pay as recommended but deducted a
further half day's pay because of the worker's attendance at
the Rights Commissioner's investigation.
4. The Court is asked to recommend that:-
(a) the Union be allowed to represent the worker in all
matters relating to her employment with the Company,
(b) the worker be compensated for the harassment she has
had to endure by way of a lump sum payment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned brought a claim of harassment against
the Company. She made several serious accusations without
providing proof or evidence to support them. The Company
totally denies the allegations and asks the Court to examine
them in detail (details of the allegations and of the
Company's position supplied to the Court).
2. The Company is prepared to allow an officer of the Court
or the Court Division to meet with all or some of its staff so
that all claims of harassment, intimidation, anti-Union
attitudes and working conditions can be answered honestly. It
is the Company's opinion that the worker's claim of harassment
is nothing more than an attempt to be in a position to claim
constructive dismissal at some stage.
3. The Company accepts the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation and asks the Court to uphold it. However, the
Company do not accept that Union recognition was an issue at
the investigation. The subject for discussion was alleged
harassment and the issue of union recognition/representation
was raised during the investigation. If the Union wishes to
raise the issue of recognition, it can do so under Section
20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
DECISION:
5. The Court having listened to the submissions of the parties is
seriously disturbed that the relationship between the Management
and an individual worker could have deteriorated to the extent
indicated to the Court particularly where it is recognised the
worker concerned is a good worker.
It is the view of the Court that every effort should be made to
improve those relationships and to this end discussions should
take place between the member and the Management as a matter of
urgency. Should it be considered of benefit the Court is prepared
to make available an Industrial Relations Officer to assist the
parties in these discussions.
With regard to the issue of recognition the Court notes this issue
was not dealt with by the Rights Commissioner. The Court notes
the complainant is the only member of the Union in the Company.
In the circumstances the Court recommends that the Union be given
rights of representation on behalf of this member.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
____________________________
27th September, 1990. Deputy Chairman
A.McG./J.C.