Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9526 Case Number: AD9532 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: UNIVERSITY OF LIMERICK - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. DC126/94 concerning the breakdown in the working relationship between the worker and the University.
Recommendation:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions of all the
parties involved in addition to the Rights Commissioner's
comments.
The Court while supporting the Rights Commissioner's analysis and
findings would amend the Recommendation as follows:-
(1) The parties to meet at the earliest possible date to
endeavour to re-establish good working relationships.
(2) The claimant to apologise to her Head of Department for
breaching his confidentiality.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9526 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD3295
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
UNIVERSITY OF LIMERICK
AND
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. DC126/94 concerning the breakdown in the
working relationship between the worker and the University.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The University held interviews for the post of Senior
Lecturer in Law. On 4th May, 1993, the Head of
Department informed the successful candidate, on a
confidential basis, of the decision of the interview
board. He also informed the worker of the Board's
decision on the same basis. The parties had a further
discussion on 5th May concerning the reasons for the
decision. On 17th May, the worker informed the Head of
Department that she was circulating her notes on the
discussions between them to the other members of the
selection board.
2. A dispute arose between the parties which involved
considerable correspondence and discussions (details
supplied). On 27th May, 1994, the Union was mandated to
initiate all-out strike action to resolve the matter.
Industrial action was postponed pending the referral of
the dispute to a Rights Commissioner.
3. The Rights Commissioner's investigation took place on
8th November, 1994. The complaints by the University
against the worker are summarised as follows:-
(a) In May, 1993, relative to interviews for a Senior
Lectureship post in Law, it was alleged that the
worker had committed a serious breach of
confidentiality arising from conversations with her
Head of Department on that occasion.
(b) She had published unauthorised versions of these
conversations to members of the Selection Board for
the post, before their recommendations had been
approved by the Governing Body.
(c) She had attempted to interfere with the
impartiality of the selection procedures, and had
unfairly and wrongfully impugned the integrity of
her Head of Department and also had cast
unwarranted aspersions on the academic reputation
of the successful candidate.
(d) She refused to discuss the matter with the College
Dean, and had subsequently failed to attend
meetings to discuss the issue.
(e) The worker was not complying with the University's
requirements on residence within 20 miles of the
Campus, and in fact she lived in Barna, Co. Galway,
some 80 miles from Limerick, and furthermore it was
alleged that she consistently attempted to alter
the terms of her employment contract originally
agreed between herself and the University.
(f) It was also stated that the worker did not accept
the right of her Line Manager to insist on her
attendance at the University to discharge her
contractual duties, and details of her weekly,
hourly attendance over the past three years, were
advanced by the Personnel Manager.
(g) The worker had on occasions also refused to accept
or abide by clear majority decisions of her
colleagues at Departmental meetings, and without
good reason had made and was still prepared to make
derogatory comments relating to University Staff.
4. The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation as follows was
issued on 2nd December, 1994.
(a) The worker should proffer an unqualified and
sincere verbal and written apology to her Head of
Department for breaching his confidentiality.
(b) If this is forthcoming, both parties should meet at
the earliest possible date with a view to quickly
resolving the other issues in dispute, and
re-establishing good working relationships between
the worker and other members of Management, at the
University.
(The worker and the Head of Department were named in the
Recommendation).
5. Under the terms of Section 13(9) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969, the Recommendation was appealed by
the Union to the Labour Court. The Court heard the
appeal in Limerick on 15th March, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is being
appealed as the Rights Commissioner did not identify the
core problem, i.e. the general lack of procedure at the
University of Limerick and specifically in relation to
recruitment, coupled with the abuse of those procedures
which do exist.
2. There was no breach of confidentiality, the procedure
followed by the worker retained confidentiality. The
Rights Commissioner did not have the opportunity to
evaluate the sequence of events which demonstrates this
(details supplied).
3. The Rights Commissioner was not aware of the
University's breach of settlement terms and basis for
referral to the Rights Commissioner (details supplied).
4. The Rights Commissioner was not in a position to
evaluate the University's victimisation of the worker
arising from her attempt to follow normal lines of
procedure (details supplied).
5. The summary of the University's submission in the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation was the first occasion on
which the worker was made aware or had written details
of (many of the) allegations; it would be contrary to
natural justice not to be able to address these
unsubstantiated allegations.
6. The University's responses to the Union's submission to
the Rights Commissioner were in most cases untrue, and
in some cases a distortion of the truth. It would be
invidious if these were not refuted (details supplied).
7. Given the above the recommendation that the worker
apologise is invidious whereas the Recommendation in
total does not provide a workable solution and should be
set aside and a new approach taken by the Labour Court.
UNIVERSITY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Arising out of a confidential post-interview briefing,
the worker attempted to restore her candidacy for a
senior lectureship post by canvassing the selection
board members (including a Governing Body Chairman)
directly. This action impugned both the successful
candidate and the Head of Department. The worker
refused to attend meetings with the University's
management and to abide by the agreed grievance
procedure.
2. The worker's actions in this case has caused great
difficulty for the university. It believes that the
Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is fair, reasonable
and based on a solid grasp of the facts in a complicated
dispute.
DECISION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions of all the
parties involved in addition to the Rights Commissioner's
comments.
The Court while supporting the Rights Commissioner's analysis and
findings would amend the Recommendation as follows:-
(1) The parties to meet at the earliest possible date to
endeavour to re-establish good working relationships.
(2) The claimant to apologise to her Head of Department for
breaching his confidentiality.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
5th April, 1995 Finbarr Flood
J.F./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman