FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR347/00/JH.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment in Independent Newspapers in 1970 in the telesales area. She is now employed as an Advertising Canvasser. The worker states that she did not experience any particular difficulties in the workplace until 1981, when the outdoor Sales Representative became Advertising Manager. She claims that since then she has experienced a number of difficulties with both the Advertising Manager and with his successor. She believes that the Advertising Manager did not like her, and that he resented her involvement as a Union representative and her work on the Independent Section Committee. A number of incidents occurred over the period (details supplied to the Court) which the worker believed resulted in marginalisation and isolation. She states that she experienced hostility, a threat to her employment, removal from her place of work, that information was withheld from her and that there was a generally hostile and harassing environment. The issues were the subject of correspondence and of local meetings and were also referred to the Labour Relations Commission and the Rights Commissioner's service for resolution.
The current dispute was the subject of a Rights Commissioner's investigation in April and May, 2000 and in February, 2001. The Rights Commissioner issued her recommendation on the 12th of March, 2001, as follows:-
1. "The problems identified through this process can only be resolved through dialogue around the matter of (the worker's) future role in Independent Newspapers and such dialogue should commence without delay. Any agreement on this role must include a clear understanding on when and how any subsequent complaints by the worker or indeed by management will be addressed. Michael Halpenny and Declan Carlyle should take the leading role in such discussions. If deemed necessary any agreement should include medical or counselling support for (the worker). Any agreement to be in writing.
2. As a gesture of goodwill to (the worker) and acknowledgement of the commitments made to the undersigned the equal billing agreement is to be honoured by management in all future listings with effect from April 2000. Failure to do so will enable (the worker) to revert to the undersigned on the matter of compensation for breach of agreement and theonly question will be the amount of the compensation to be awarded.
3. The conclusion of an agreement at item 1 and acceptance of this recommendation to be in full and final settlement of the issues brought by SIPTU/(the worker) to the Rights Commissioner's Service i.e. a closure on those issues by both sides."
(The worker was named in the above recommendation.)
The Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's recommendation to the Labour Court on the 17th of April, 2001 under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing was held on the 6th of June, 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation falls down on a number of grounds. At all times it has been made clear that the allegations were ones of bullying and harassment, yet the Recommendation implies that there were only initially allegations of "isolation and marginalisation". The Rights Commissioner states that she does not consider the worker to have been bullied or harassed, yet there is a clear contradiction in her findings. On the one hand she states that there is no bullying or harassment and at the same time she states that there is no basis for any suggestion that the Advertising Manager has abused the worker in recent times.
2. There are substantial and substantive grounds to conclude that the claimant has been subject to behaviour which constitutes bullying and harassment. There is a lengthy history of this up to recently involving, for much of that period, the Advertising Manager. His treatment of the worker necessitated the intervention of the Union, not only locally, but also by successive Branch Secretaries. On a number of occasions the intervention of the Labour Relations Commission and the Rights Commissioner's service was sought to resolve the difficulties experienced by the worker.
3. The worker believes that she was victimised because of her Union activity. She was passed over on several occasions, subjected to abusive language and behaviour, was removed from her normal place of work, her secondment was blocked, her position was undermined and she was prevented from carrying out normal functions of her job. This is in contravention of the Company's recently-introduced Anti-bullying and Harassment Policy.
4. There was no real weight of investigation given to the lengthy background involvement of the Advertising Manager, which is a very serious proportion of the complaint. The Union is appealing to the Labour Court to rectify the situation or to open a new investigation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The policy of the Company regarding complaints made by the staff is that all complaints are treated with sincerity and seriousness by the Human Resources department and are processed as such.
2. The worker has consistently criticised all levels of Advertising management. While relationships between the worker and various members of management have not been ideal, they certainly do not amount to bullying or harassment.
3. It is the Company's view that the worker has taken the opportunity to further her claims by alleging that her perceived difficulties emanate from her position as a staff representative. However, she expects "special" treatment, rather than "equal" treatment. In 1998 and 1999 she refused to move her desk 15 feet to allow for the expansion of the Recruitment Team and demanded the full process of the industrial relations procedure. The matter was later resolved after referral to a Rights Commissioner.
4. The Company accepts that a number of errors occurred concerning the agreement on Equal Billing and accepts the criticism in the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and the mechanisms of redress if further errors occur. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was thorough, with a number of meetings taking place, both separately and in formal joint sessions. The recommendation was succinct and incisive in its determination.
DECISION:
The Court has given careful consideration to both the oral and written submissions in this case. The appellant has accused a named manager of serious allegations of bullying and harassment evolving from a series of events going back to the early 1980's. The Court is not satisfied that these allegations stand up. It is clearly evident to the Court that there has not been a good working relationship between the parties for many years, despite attempts by the Union and management to try and deal with the situation.
In order to establish a good and healthy working environment, these problems needed to be addressed and brought to a conclusion. The Rights Commissioner found that the Company had not always acted in a professional manner in relation to many of the issues addressed by the appellant and, similarly, that the appellant had, in many instances, contributed to the difficulties herself.
The Court is of the view that the Rights Commissioner's findings and recommendation were very comprehensive. The Court concurs with the Rights Commissioner's recommendation that the way to proceed is to put in place a mechanism to establish a better working environment. The Court recommends that this should be carried out without delay.
Therefore, the Court upholds the Rights Commissioner's recommendation, the appeal is disallowed.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
9th July, 2001______________________
M.O'C.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Marian O'Connell, Court Secretary.