Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9293 Case Number: AD92156 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: UPRIGHT IRELAND LTD. - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC438/91.
Recommendation:
The Court having fully considered the views expressed by both
parties in their oral and written submissions finds there are
grounds for the employee's complaint.
The Court notes the letter of 3rd October, 1991 and concurs with
the findings of the Rights Commissioner that the letter
acknowledges the worker was loyal and highly competent and
expresses in clear and unambiguous terms the expression of
appreciation of the worker's contribution to the organisation.
The Court accepts the worker is fearful that the terms of the
letter might not be substantiated in telephone enquiries from
prospective employers. It is the decision of the Court that the
Company should make such arrangements as are necessary to ensure
that the expressions as outlined in the letter are supported in
any subsequent enquiries made by any prospective employer
regarding the worker.
Furthermore the Court decides that the Company should take steps
to ensure that a harmonious working environment is created and
circumstances such as described in this case are dealt with
fully and expeditiously in the future and not left to fester.
The Court does not consider compensation an appropriate remedy
in this case.
The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation should be amended
accordingly. The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9293 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD15692
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: UPRIGHT IRELAND LTD.
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. BC438/91.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company
in January, 1978 as an Accounts Supervisor. Her record with the
Company has been a good one. The Union contends that since 1990
problems arose between the worker and her supervisor. It claims
that the worker suffered distress as a result of comments made
about her by the supervisor, allegedly undermining her ability
to do her job. The Company denies the allegation and is
satisfied that the supervisor did not undermine the worker
concerned. It re-iterated its confidence in the worker in a
letter to her dated 3rd October, 1991 (Copy supplied to Court).
The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. A Rights Commissioners
investigation took place on 20th January, 1992 and the following
recommendation issued on 28th January, 1992.
"Recommendation
In the light of the above and especially in view of the
categorical assurances embodied in the letter from Mr. Noel
Corcoran on the 3rd October, 1991 I believe that the matter
should be regarded as having been brought to a satisfactory
conclusion. Therefore I must recommend that the claim must
fail".
The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation was appealed to the
Labour Court by the Union in accordance with Section 36(2) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court
investigation took place on 9th March, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The behaviour and attitude of the supervisor towards
the worker caused her great distress. The allegation made
by the supervisor to another employee, that the worker did
not know how to do her job, seriously undermines the worker
and could affect her in a search for any other position.
The worker is seeking compensation from the Company and a
written apology for the comment made. The Union proposes
that a change in management structure be made to avoid such
a situation arising within the Company again.
2. When the question of redundancies within the Company
arose, the worker was assured that she would remain
unaffected. However, in May, 1991 she was informed that
her redundancy was imminent and that she would be given
three months notice. It was learned that notice was
originally to issue to the worker on 10th December,1991 but
that as no arrangements were made for somebody to carry out
her duties the notice date was changed to 10th January,
1992 with the worker due to be made redundant on 10th
April, 1992.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The alleged remarks to the Supervisor concerning
allegations made about the worker were treated seriously
and fully investigated. The supervisor denies that she
made any comment about the worker's ability to do her job.
Having satisfied itself that there was no substance to the
allegations the Company undertook to assure the worker of
the high regard in which she was held by issuing the letter
of 3rd October. The Company cannot agree to the demands of
the Union as in doing so it would damage the integrity of
its own supervisor.
2. The Company did not give any assurance to the worker
that she would not be made redundant. Due to changes
within the Company it was agreed that accounts for European
Offices would now be done in local offices. This factor
and the selling of the Danish Company reduced the workers
duties by 50%. She was informed in May, 1991 that her
redundancy was imminent but that she would receive thee
months notice.
DECISION:
The Court having fully considered the views expressed by both
parties in their oral and written submissions finds there are
grounds for the employee's complaint.
The Court notes the letter of 3rd October, 1991 and concurs with
the findings of the Rights Commissioner that the letter
acknowledges the worker was loyal and highly competent and
expresses in clear and unambiguous terms the expression of
appreciation of the worker's contribution to the organisation.
The Court accepts the worker is fearful that the terms of the
letter might not be substantiated in telephone enquiries from
prospective employers. It is the decision of the Court that the
Company should make such arrangements as are necessary to ensure
that the expressions as outlined in the letter are supported in
any subsequent enquiries made by any prospective employer
regarding the worker.
Furthermore the Court decides that the Company should take steps
to ensure that a harmonious working environment is created and
circumstances such as described in this case are dealt with
fully and expeditiously in the future and not left to fester.
The Court does not consider compensation an appropriate remedy
in this case.
The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation should be amended
accordingly. The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
5th May, 1992 _______________________
A.Ni.S./N.Ni.M. Deputy Chairman