FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BUS EIREANN - AND - ICTU GROUP OF UNIONS DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Matters arising in Tralee depot.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court concerns the Unions' claim of bullying and intimidation by an Assistant Foreman employed by the Company at its Tralee Garage.
The supervisor involved was appointed to the position in April, 1997. Within a short period of his appointment a number of maintenance workers expressed concern at his style of supervision. On foot of a complaint by the workers the Company's Managing Director visited Tralee on the 19th of September, 1997 to establish some background in relation to the complaint.
On the 14th of October, 1997, following an incident between a worker and the Assistant Foreman, staff stopped work and engaged in unofficial industrial action. In order to defuse the situation the supervisor commenced annual leave following which he was placed by the Company on a training/development course.
The Managing Director revisited Tralee on the 11th of November, 1997 in an effort to resolve the situation, but the workers refused to co-operate with any initiative which included the Assistant Foreman as part of the solution.
In December, 1997, the Company received a request from the Unions to defer the Assistant Foreman's return to work pending further local discussion. A meeting took place on the 18th of December, 1997 following which the Company nominated a member of management to investigate the matter. The report (details supplied) was issued on the 24th of March, 1998 to all staff concerned. It recommended that the Assistant Foreman resume his full range of duties forthwith. The report was unacceptable to the workers.
On the 20th of April, 1998, the workers engaged in unofficial industrial action in protest at the Assistant Foreman's return to duty. On the 27th of April, 1998, following a resumption of normal work, the matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference took place on the 29th of April, 1998. As agreement could not be reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 5th of May, 1998, under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. Following the conciliation conference the IRO put forward interim proposals pending the outcome of the Court's deliberations which the Company accepted. A Labour Court hearing took place in Limerick on the 13th of May, 1998.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Within a short period of his appointment the workers concerned expressed concern at the Assistant Foreman's style of supervision. The action taken by the workers was an attempt to highlight the level of intimidation and bullying.
2. The Company's refusal to investigate the allegations at an early stage was seen by the workers as an endorsement of a bullying policy and led to management taking the extraordinary step of removing the Assistant Foreman from the garage.
3. There is a genuine fear that the Assistant Foreman's conduct was contrived to provoke a physical response from the workers and this almost happened on a number of occasions.
4. A serious situation exists at Tralee. The relationship of mutual respect between staff and supervisor/management has broken down. In order to restore a proper relationship it is necessary that an independent investigation of the complaints take place. If it is shown that misconduct has taken place, steps must be put in place so that it does not happen in the future.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company submits that it has acted in a fair and reasonable manner at all times concerning this matter. It has fully investigated the allegations made and staff have been assured that it was never the intention to engage in acts of victimisation, bullying or harassment. During a period of six months whilst the various investigative and consultative processes, were being undertaken, the Company was without the services of the Assistant Garage Foreman. Every effort was made to facilitate all concerned in this dispute, as is evidenced, considerable time and resources were invested in attempting to resolve this issue.
2. All staff in Tralee Garage must resume full duties and in the event of difficulties arising the mechanism detailed in the Investigator's report can be used.
3. The allegations made by staff which gave rise to this situation did not warrant the action undertaken by the staff concerned.
4. The Assistant Foreman was the successful candidate following an internal competition and has undergone a training/development programme with an experienced Human Resource Specialist in order to achieve and nurture better communications/relationships among all staff. In keeping with Company policy any proven acts of victimisation/harassment etc. will not be tolerated.
5. The unofficial industrial action which took place from the 20th to the 28th April, 1998 was in breach of procedures. Such behaviour can severely damage the Company's business and put at risk the continued employment of staff. Each individual will be formally advised in this regard.
6. The Company is convinced that the solutions outlined in the Report published by the agreed manager following his full investigation of the situation prevailing in Tralee Garage represents the best way forward in this matter.
RECOMMENDATION:
The events disclosed to the Court in the course of this investigation point to a complete breakdown of any form of normal working relationship between the Assistant Foreman and many of the maintenance staff at the Tralee Depot.
Problems seem to have emerged shortly after the appointment of the Assistant Foreman in April, 1997. They centred mainly on what could be described as his supervisory style. The first formal complaints were made at a meeting between Union representatives and the District Manager in June of that year. There followed correspondence on the matter to the Chief Executive of CIE, a visit to the depot by the Managing Director of the Company, an unofficial work stoppage by staff and the temporary removal of the Assistant Foreman from his post. Finally, in March, 1998, the Company instigated a formal investigation by a senior manager.
The resultant report, a copy of which was provided to the Court, appears balanced and primarily designed to address the inter-personal issues which had arisen. It recommended that the Assistant Foreman be returned to duty and made proposals as to how staff grievances should be dealt with in future and communications improved. Regrettably this did not resolve the matter. The report was not accepted by staff and when the Assistant Foreman returned to work there was a further unofficial work stoppage. It is against that background that the dispute was referred to the Court.
In its investigation of this dispute the overriding concern of the Court is to restore normal working relations between all concerned at the Tralee depot. This approach is also shared by all parties to the dispute. The Court does not believe that a long and acrimonious inquiry into events stretching back over twelve months would advance the attainment of that objective. As is inevitably the case in situations such as this, a monopoly of right or wrong would not be found on either side.
It is unfortunate that the Company did not react with greater dispatch in instigating an internal investigation of the employee complaints which gave rise to this dispute. The lapse of time between the initial raising of the complaints and the commencement of the inquiry allowed attitudes to harden and positions to become more entrenched.
It is noted that the Union Group and the Company are at an advanced stage in concluding a revised Employee Grievance Procedure. From the draft provided to the Court it is clear that the parties intend to incorporate best practice within a framework designed to facilitate the speedy and objectively fair resolution of the type of issues which are originally raised by staff. When concluded and implemented, this agreement should greatly minimise the possibility of a reoccurrence of the type of events which exacerbated this dispute.
There is, however, an immediate need to address the particular problems at the Tralee Depot. The Court, therefore, recommends as follows:-
1. The assistant foreman should be allowed to return to his post and resume his supervisory duties. In so doing he should fully utilise the additional skills developed through the Human Resource Training Programme in which he has recently participated.
2. Priority should be given by all levels of Management to developing and maintaining improved systems of communications with all staff and a management/supervisory approach which is objectively fair and effective. In particular the Company should again emphasise its stated policy of not tolerating any form of victimisation or harassment.
3. Staff should fully accept that the Assistant Foreman was fairly appointed to that post. They should also accept that the duties of that post involve managing the work within the garage and ensuring that efficient practices are in place, and that this can sometimes lead to inter-personal friction.
4. In order to assist local management and Union representatives in stabilising industrial relations at the Depot, a special Industrial Relations Monitoring Group should be established, comprising two senior Company Human Resource specialists and two national Union officials nominated by the ICTU Group. This group should stand constituted for a period of six months and advise on any issues impacting on industrial relations or relating to employee grievances at the depot. For this purpose they should occasionally visit the Depot.
5. Finally, the parties should seek to have the revised Grievance Procedure put in place nationally and as quickly as possible.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
29th May, 1998______________________
F.B./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.