AD9832

SUBJECT:
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. 818/97 concerning alleged harassment.





BACKGROUND:

2. The Hotel which is located in Dame Street, employs approximately 55 people. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Hotel as a porter in 1995 and was later transferred to work in the reception area.

The dispute before the Court concerns the worker's claim that a member of management tried to remove him from his job by threatening and harassing him. The worker argues that the manager's actions caused him considerable stress.

Local level discussions failed to resolve the issue and the matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 20th of March, 1998 the Rights Commissioner recommended as follows:-

"In view of the history of the worker's complaints of harassment and the response of the employer since November, 1997, I recommend that the worker be paid a sum of £750 by the employer by way of compensation for their actions towards him. The Company should issue comprehensive grievance and disciplinary procedures to all employees within one month of this recommendation and these procedures should be discussed with staff prior to issue.

The worker should receive a pay increase at least in line with the National Social Partnership Agreement Partnership 2000 on the date generally applied within the Hotel trade and on the due dates.



All of these recommendations to be implemented no later than one month from the date of issue of this recommendation.

The worker should suffer no recriminations as a result of his pursuit of his grievance. He and the Manager should work together in a positive manner as far as possible to address any operational difficulties which arise in the course of their duties or use the procedures produced by the Company if necessary."

The worker and manager were named in the recommendation.

The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was appealed by the Hotel to the Labour Court on the 26th of March, 1998 under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on the 6th of May, 1998.



WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The Company tried to remove the worker from his job by way of verbal abuse, harassment and threats (details supplied to the Court). This has been confirmed by the Rights Commissioner in her recommendation.

2. The worker has not received a pay increase in over two years and the Company refuses to pay an increase in line with the National Social Partnership Agreement Partnership 2000. It has tried to set conditions whereby it would grant him a pay increase if he accepted a night porter's position. The Company also refuses to recognise bank holidays as paid holidays.

3. The Company has twice gone back on its promise to implement proper grievance procedures.

4. There is no proper training for staff. The worker has been phoned at home on his days off because management and members of staff do not know how to use the computer and phone systems fully.

5. The worker operates on his own most of the time. This means that the worker gets no breaks and cannot even use the toilet because he cannot be away from the reception desk.


HOTEL'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The Company recognise an employee's right to refer a matter to a third party. However, matters should only be referred to a third party when they have not been resolved satisfactorily at local level. In this case it was not possible to resolve this matter at local level, because management have not been given the opportunity to deal with the allegations of harassment

2. The Company would be concerned if any employee felt they were being harassed. In fact, the Company would take a very serious view if an employee was being harassed. However, one must distinguish between harassment and dealing with an individual where there are difficulties regarding their work performance.

3. The manager in question has recently left the employment of the Hotel. While she was not acting on the instructions of senior management there were a number of instances documented, (details supplied to the Court), which caused her to speak to the worker about his job performance. In the circumstances the Hotel consider that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation is unfair and that she did not consider fully its position.



4. The Hotel acknowledges that it currently has a good working relationship with the worker concerned and wishes to reach a solution regarding the problem.




DECISION:

Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court has concluded that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation is not unreasonable in the circumstances and accordingly should be upheld.

The Court, therefore, rejects the appeal and so decides.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Evelyn Owens
19th May, 1998______________________
F.B./D.T.Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.