FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : WYETH MEDICA - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation 1R 712/98 GF.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a claim of alleged harassment by a male employee of the Company.
A female claims that the employee concerned constantly stared at her over a twelve month period and that she became concerned for her safety. A formal complaint was made to management in the matter and following an internal investigation, the woman's complaint was upheld.
The worker concerned vehemently denies the allegations of any harassment.
The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. A Rights Commissioner's hearing was held on the 21st of December, 1998 and on the 9th and 10th of March, 1999. The Rights Commissioner recommended as follows:-
"I have given very careful consideration to the evidence in this case. On balance I have come to the conclusion that the claimant must have been aware of the intimidating effect his behaviour was having on the woman.
I am not convinced by his complete denial. I am satisfied that his practice of constantly staring at her was witnessed by a number of people who came forward to make statements in this regard. I have no reason to believe they are telling anything other than the truth. On the basis of the evidence, this claim fails.
P.S. Since the findings on the internal enquiry the harassment has stopped. Therefore, I am recommending that all reference to the incidents and the actual enquiry itself should be removed from the claimant's personal file from the 1st of June, 1999."
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 6th of May, 1999 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th of July, 1999.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker emphatically denies the allegations of harassment.
2. The worker has witnesses who state that they never saw him "stare" at this person.
3. There is no substance to the allegations. The Company's decision was based on a balance of convenience and not on the balance of evidence.
4. Management acted in an unbalanced and biased manner and failed to observe the rules of natural justice.
5. The Company's Sexual Harassment Policy was never revealed to the Union or to the workforce. When it was, it was found to be inadequate and was subsequently amended.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company carried out an extensive and impartial investigation into the allegations of harassment and concluded that there was substance to the claim.
2. Statements by the woman's mother and her fianc� substantiate the claims of "staring".
3. Colleagues of the woman have also witnessed incidents of staring by the defendant.
4. The worker concerned was aware of the unease and the distress he was causing to this particular employee.
5. Since the findings of the internal enquiry the harassment has stopped.
DECISION:
It is unfortunate that the complaint became such a public matter rather than being dealt with on a low key basis as originally requested by the complainant.
However, on the substantive issue before it, the Court, having considered the written and oral submissions, finds no reason to change the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court therefore upholds the Right Commissioner's Recommendation and rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
5th August, 1999______________________
L.W./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.