Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93303 Case Number: AD9454 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: POTTERTON MYSON LIMITED - and - A WORKER;MANDATE |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. CW53/93.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered all of the arguments made by the
parties in their oral and written submissions. The Court finds
that there was no intention on the complainant's part to harass
members of the staff.
The Court recognises that there is a duty on the Company to ensure
a safe working environment for all employees.
Given all of the circumstances of the case the Court decides that,
in the interests of providing such an environment and creating and
maintaining harmonious working relationships;
(1) The Company pays the week's pay recommended by the
Rights Commissioner on receipt of this decision.
(2) The Court notes the final warning has been deleted from
the record.
(3) On resumption of work by the complainant the parties
will ensure there is no victimisation.
Subject to the above the Rights Commissioners recommendation is
upheld.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93303 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD5494
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9) OF THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: POTTERTON MYSON LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY MANDATE)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No.
CW53/93.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was appointed to the position of warehouse
supervisor with the Company in 1985. The Union states that, in
1991, the worker began to experience work problems. In November,
1992 the worker received a letter from Management, alleging that
he was guilty of violent behaviour and threatening fellow workers.
Following an investigation, the worker was issued with a final
written warning and suspended for five days without pay.
3. The dispute was referred to the Rights Commissioner's service
and a hearing took place on 22nd March, 1993. The Rights
Commissioner recommended as follows:-
"I recommend that the Company restores the week's pay to the
worker, that the final warning has a 12 month expiry after
date of issue, and that the worker accepts this in
settlement of the dispute".
(The worker was named in the above recommendation).
4. The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on
7th May, 1993 under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 15th June, 1994 (the
earliest date suitable to the parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker has been unjustly accused by Management of
violent and threatening behaviour in the workplace. He has
been subjected to continuous harassment, e.g., receiving no
bonus in years 1991/92, having his supervisory duties taken
from him, having his work checked in greater detail than other
staff, attempts by management to isolate the worker.
2. On two occasions the Company offered a redundancy
package to the worker. The worker refused the offers as he
wished to remain in employment. His health has deteriorated
as a result of events at the Company. He has been in receipt
of the Company's Income Continuance Plan since August, 1993.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. At a meeting with the Company in 1993, the worker
indicated that he would accept a proposed redundancy package.
He then stated that he wished to avail himself of the
Company's Income Continuance Plan, which he has done since
August, 1993.
2. The official warning which the worker received in
November, 1992 has been removed from his file. The week's
salary, which the Rights Commissioner recommended be restored,
has been available to the worker since the date of
recommendation.
DECISION:
5. The Court has considered all of the arguments made by the
parties in their oral and written submissions. The Court finds
that there was no intention on the complainant's part to harass
members of the staff.
The Court recognises that there is a duty on the Company to ensure
a safe working environment for all employees.
Given all of the circumstances of the case the Court decides that,
in the interests of providing such an environment and creating and
maintaining harmonious working relationships;
(1) The Company pays the week's pay recommended by the
Rights Commissioner on receipt of this decision.
(2) The Court notes the final warning has been deleted from
the record.
(3) On resumption of work by the complainant the parties
will ensure there is no victimisation.
Subject to the above the Rights Commissioners recommendation is
upheld.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
28th July, 1994 -------------
C O'N/U.S. Deputy Chairman