FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CHOPARD INTERNATIONAL LTD. - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY DAVID THOMAS) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner Recommendation IR4324/01/TB.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed as a supervisor in Centre Quickstop, Artane from the 22nd November, 2000 until he resigned on the 27th March, 2001.
On the 2nd February, 2001 a cheque fro £100 was cashed in the shop. The worker's signature was on the back of the cheque. This cheque subsequently bounced and he was held responsible for it.
The worker alleges that as a result of that incident, he was bullied and harassed by his superior. He also claims that he did not receive a contract of employment while employed with the Company.
Management rejects the claim of bullying and harassment. It states that the worker went on sick leave on the 15th February, 2001. The Company were unable to investigate the worker's complaint of bullying and harassment until he returned to work.
The dispute was the subject of a Rights Commissioner's hearing which took place on the 3rd September, 2001. The following is the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation:-
"I found no evidence of bullying and harassment on a scale that would have justified the claimant resigning his position.
I believe the other issues could have been resolved if the claimant had returned to work. This he chose not to do. The complaint fails."
The worker appealed the Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 23rd October, 2001, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th January, 2002.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company failed to provide him with a copy of his contract of employment while employed with them.
2. After five weeks there was still no sign of an investigation into the worker's complaint of bullying and harassment.
3. The worker was happy and contented in his job up until the incident of the cheque, for which he had accepted responsibility.
4. The worker had indicated to management that he might be able to return to work on the 18th February, but this was rejected by management.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company rejects the allegations of bullying and harassment.
2. Following the worker's letter of resignation, the Company wrote to the worker stating that his position was still open for him if he wanted to return to work.
3. The Company indicated to the worker that his complaint of harassment would be investigated when he returned to work.
4. The Rights Commissioner found that the worker's complaint had failed.
DECISION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of the parties in this appeal.
The Court cannot find any evidence to suggest that the Company was unwilling to respond to the claimant's complaints of bullying or to address his grievances in relation to his terms of employment. These matters could not be dealt with while the claimant was on sick leave and the Company did indicate its willingness to deal with them on his return.
Regrettably, the claimant formed the view that the Company was unwilling to address his concerns and resigned. The Court cannot accept that there was any element of unreasonableness on the Company's part which could have lead him to that view.
The Court accepts that the claimant had given good and satisfactory service while in the employment of the Company. This is clearly evident from the fact that having indicated his intention to resign the Company asked the claimant to reconsider his position.
The Court believes that both parties should now consider this matter closed. In the circumstances the Court recommends that the claimant be provided with a reference confirming his satisfactory service and that his employment ended by resignation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
24th January, 2002______________________
L.W./B.R.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.