FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : R.T.E. - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR984/00/CW.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned has been employed in R.T.E. for 26 years. She is a Senior Assistant Librarian in the Illustrations Library. On the 3rd of March, 1999 the Managing Director TV informed the worker that there were staff problems in her section and that she was "not management material". The worker claims that he refused to expand further on his comments. She wrote to him twice in March requesting a meeting to discuss the issue, but did not receive a reply. Further problems arose subsequently and in October, 1999 a meeting was held between the worker, SIPTU and Management to try to resolve the issue. A letter from Management dated the 11th of October, 1999 did not resolve the issue for the worker and she referred the dispute to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. The issues referred concerned non-promotion, job status and the comment made to the worker on the 3rd of March, 1999.
Rights Commissioner's hearings were held in February, 2000 and July, 2000. The Rights Commissioner's findings, which issued on the 25th of July, 2000, stated that the meeting in March, 1999 was unfair to the worker concerned, at least on procedural grounds, and that all records and correspondence emanating from or connected with that meeting should be considered void. Any issues which RTE had with the claimant or vice-versa should be dealt with on a day one basis. He recommended that both RTE and the worker accept that the dispute had been resolved.
The worker did not accept the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and appealed the matter to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court investigated the dispute on the 29th of September, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker worked for three years on two major projects. She represented RTE abroad and introduced changes in work practices in the Illustrations Library. She was requested to handle projects without Management support, and she completed the Elise project on time and within specification.
2. The statement made by the Managing Director TV has detrimentally affected the worker's promotional opportunities within the Organisation. He subsequently consistently refused to discuss the matter with her until one year later when he was forced to produce a written response.
3. The worker strongly contests Management's allegations throughout this case that she has been unco-operative. No disciplinary procedures were ever initiated concerning performance issues. Before the second Rights Commissioner's hearing management put forward a letter referring to complaints about the worker which contained second-hand information. This was obviously with a view to exercising maximum damage to the worker.
ORGANISATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. RTE gave serious consideration to the terms of the Rights Commissioner's recommendation. While it had some concerns in relation to the findings, it was felt that it would be best to accept the recommendation as it provided a way forward. At the worker's request RTE granted her unpaid leave from the 5th of October, 2000 until the 21st of June, 2001. The Company cannot deal with any issues relating to her employment while she is on unpaid leave.
2. Since the Rights Commissioner's hearings the worker has failed to co-operate with her new direct line Manager. She has also continually refused to co-operate with the Head of Broadcast Library since his appointment. This is totally unacceptable. When the worker returns to work she will be required to make a meaningful contribution to the Organisation, with a significantly higher level of performance than has been the case in the recent past. If it is necessary, the full rigours of the RTE disciplinary and related procedures will be utilised.
DECISION:
While the Court appreciates the basis on which the Union brought this appeal, the Court is satisfied that the Rights Commissioner dealt with the case in an appropriate manner. The Court is further satisfied that the concerns which the Union highlighted to the Court were adequately addressed by the Rights Commissioner in his Recommendation.
It is noted that the Authority indicated that in the spirit of the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation they would be prepared to consider the events giving rise to this dispute, including matters referred to in their submission, as closed. On this basis, when the claimant returns to work, following her career break, it should be on the basis that there are no outstanding matters against her, on her record or otherwise.
Accordingly, the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is upheld.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
11th October, 2000______________________
D.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.