FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : POWERSCOURT SPRINGS HEALTH FARM (REPRESENTED BY BCM HANBY WALLACE) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY AUGUSTUS CULLEN & CO) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR11519/02/TB.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claimant was employed from the 14th of November, 2001, until the 8th of August, 2002. On the 2nd of July, 2002, she made a complaint in writing of sexual and verbal harassment by her immediate supervisor. (She had made a verbal complaint on the 20th of June, 2002.) The worker claims that she asked to be moved to another area as she found it very difficult to report to the immediate supervisor. She maintains that the General Manager did not take the complaint seriously and did not accommodate her request for a move. The Company's case is that it started an immediate internal investigation once the allegation had been made clear. The worker had written a letter of resignation on the 27th of June, 2002, but, in the event, stayed on while the investigation took place. She claims that when the investigation went on for 5 weeks without a resolution she was left with no choice but to resign.
The worker referred her case to a Rights Commissioner. In his findings, the Rights Commissioner stated that whilst he found the actual investigation to be fair and reasonable, he believed that the Company did not take seriously the worker's request for a move to another section. His recommendation was as follows:
"I recommend that the Company should pay the claimant €3000 in settlement of this matter"
The Company appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 6th of May, 2003, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13th of June, 2003.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
2. 1. The Rights Commissioner found that the investigation into the complaint was fair and reasonable. The award of €3,000 is unwarranted.
2. The Company was not aware until the Labour Court hearing that the worker was suffering stress. She provided no evidence to support her claim.
3. The worker initially handed in her notice within 7 days of making her claim. The Company began an investigation as soon as she made the claim in writing. The investigation was fair and reasonable.
4. There were no vacancies that the worker could have been moved to and she was informed of this by the Company.
5. The Company had difficulty in getting full details of the complaint from the worker.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The General Manager did not at any time consider moving the worker to another section, despite being told of the effect that the incident of harassment had on her health and well being.
2. The worker had to continue to report to her immediate supervisor (against whom she had made the complaint) for the 5 weeks that the investigation took place.
3. The Company had no policy in place to cover sexual harassment.
4. The worker believes that there were other positions she could have been moved to despite the Company's denial of this.
DECISION:
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties, supports the findings of the Rights Commissioner in this case.
The Court, therefore, upholds the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation and rejects the employer's appeal.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
23rd June, 2003______________________
CON/MBChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.