FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TEAGASC - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Alleged failure by the employer to prevent bullying.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1986, 8 staff members, including the worker concerned, brought a complaint under the staff grievance procedure concerning the alleged abuse they were receiving from the Chief Advisory Officer (CAO). (The worker supplied written evidence to the Court as to the CAO's behaviour). The Director of Teagasc held a hearing in February, 1987. He acknowledged that a genuine grievance existed and found in favour of the staff complaint. The worker claims that no action was taken against the CAO.
At a meeting with the Head of Personnel in April, 2000, the worker stated that Teagasc was aware that he was being bullied by the CAO from 1986 until 1991, when the CAO retired. He claims that Teagasc failed to support him or protect him from the bullying. At a further meeting in October, 2000, the Head of Personnel advised the worker that the original grievance had been dealt with and a way forward agreed at a meeting in February, 1987.
The worker referred his case to the Labour Court on the 28th of June, 2001, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 6th of September, 2002, in Monaghan, the earliest date suitable to the parties. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was an agreeable and conscientious employee who respected authority. He was continually bullied by the CAO and he has suffered ill health as a result.
2. Teagasc was aware of the bullying since the meeting in 1987 but did nothing to protect the worker, despite the introduction of a policy on bullying in 1989.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Teagasc was not made aware until April, 2000, that issues still remained to be resolved after the meeting in February, 1987. Given the passage of time, and the retirement of the CAO, it would not be possible to investigate the matter at this stage.
2. The matter was investigated in 1987. It was open to the worker or his Union to pursue the issue further if it was felt that the original investigation was unsatisfactory. This did not happen.
RECOMMENDATION:
This is a case of alleged bullying, which took place in 1986. The claimant seeks redress for the suffering he endured.
The Court is satisfied that a complaint by the worker and others, represented by their Union, was made in 1986 concerning alleged bullying. This complaint was dealt with through the proper channels. In accordance with the industrial relations procedures prevailing at the time, no further complaints were made after the official side dealt with the matter in February, 1987.
Accordingly, the Court must assume that the procedures laid down were utilised and honoured. Therefore, the Court does not recommend in favour of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
23rd September, 2002______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.