Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92677 Case Number: AD9314 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: WILO PUMPS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal on behalf of a worker, against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST 365/92 concerning a demand by the worker for an apology from the Company.
Recommendation:
The Court has given very careful consideration to the submissions
made in this case. In the light of the Company's assurances that
the record of the worker concerned is in no way prejudiced simply
on the basis of the proceedings taken, it has formed the view that
it is in the best interests of all concerned that the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation should stand. The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92677 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD1493
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: WILO PUMPS LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal on behalf of a worker, against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. ST 365/92 concerning a demand by the worker for
an apology from the Company.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures water-circulating motors. It employs
120 workers and has been based in Limerick since 1980. The worker
has been employed by the Company as a process-operative for
approximately 11 years. In Summer 1990, following complaints from
fellow-workers concerning the environment in the work-place, the
worker was approached by the Company concerning her personal
hygiene. She agreed to take more care in the future. Following
persistent complaints between August and December, 1991, the
Company again broached the subject with the worker. She was
prevailed upon to visit the Company doctor. The doctor found no
"medical abnormality which might result in an unpleasant odour".
Following the results of the doctor's tests, the worker (through
her Union) sought an apology from the Company. The Company
declined to apologise, believing that it had acted in a proper and
sympathetic manner. The dispute was investigated by a Rights
Commissioner on the 9th of September, 1992.
In his findings, the Rights Commissoner "exonerated the Company
from all blame in raising the matter in the first instance". In
his recommendation he stated that "...no useful industrial
relations purpose can be served by recommending that an apology
should issue...". He recommended that "upon receipt of the next
complaints, if any, the Company should act decisively to end the
matter".
In view of the fact that an apology was still not forthcoming from
the Company, the Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation to the Labour Court on the 30th October, 1992. The
Labour Court heard the appeal in Limerick, on the 10th of
February, 1993.
WORKER'S/UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker is entitled to an apology. She has been
humiliated by having to undergo a doctor's clinical
examination of her personal hygiene.
2. The worker's position has been vindicated by the doctor's
findings that she has a "good knowledge of personal hygiene"
and by the fact that the doctor was "unable to detect any
medical abnormality which might result in an unpleasant
odour".
3. The worker believes that as a result of the dispute, there
is a 'black-mark' on her personnel file with the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The complaints made by other employees regarding the
worker were valid. The Company has an obligation to provide a
suitable work environment for all its employees, and acted
reasonably in raising an issue which caused significant
discomfort to the other workers.
2. The Company has made every effort to handle the matter
sensitively and sympathetically. The worker's response has
been aggressive and unco-operative. This has resulted in the
issue becoming more public than was necessary.
3. There is no negative entry on the worker's personnel file
concerning the dispute.
DECISION:
The Court has given very careful consideration to the submissions
made in this case. In the light of the Company's assurances that
the record of the worker concerned is in no way prejudiced simply
on the basis of the proceedings taken, it has formed the view that
it is in the best interests of all concerned that the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation should stand. The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
____________________
3rd March, 1993. Deputy Chairman
M.K./J.C.