FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : EASON & SON LIMITED - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR8686/02/Fl.
BACKGROUND:
2. The appeal concerns a Customer Services Clerk with the Company. She alleges that she has been bullied by her supervisor.
The claimant complained to management and despite a meeting to resolve the issue she believes that the problem has not been resolved. The supervisor denies that she has bullied the claimant in any way.
The dispute was referred to a Right's Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 22nd of November, 2002 the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:
" While fully accepting that the claimant genuinely holds the view that she was being bullied by the supervisor, I could not find convincing evidence that there was validity in her claim.
I recommend that the claimant be afforded professional counselling by an external practitioner in workplace stress management.
I strongly recommend that the employer produce a written, formal Policy on Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace, which would contain a code of procedure for dealing with complaints of bullying or harassment".
The Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 31st December, 2002 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 20th of February, 2003.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. All witnesses were not interviewed by the Rights Commissioner.
2. The Rights Commissioner was made aware that other witnesses were available for interview but he did not respond.
3. The amount of time the Rights Commissioner devoted to the interviews was totally inadequate.
4. On the day of the Labour Court hearing the claimant agreed to accept referral to an external professional mediator in an effort to resolve the issue.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has had a policy of bullying and harassment in place since 1997.
2. The Company have already offered the claimant professional counselling in workplace stress management.
3. On the day of the Labour Court hearing the Company agreed they are willing to provide both parties with the facility of an external professional mediator in order to resolve the issue.
4. The Company supplied the Court with a copy of their procedures used to investigate cases of Bullying/Harassment in the workplace.
DECISION:
Having considered the positions of both sides, the Court is of the view that there are no real grounds of substance to overturn the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner. Accordingly, the Court rejects the Union's appeal.
The Court is of the view that the Company's Sexual Harassment/Bullying policy is incomplete and therefore recommends that it should be expanded to take account of Department of Enterprise Trade and Employment Code of Practice Detailing Procedures for Bullying in the Workplace S.I. No 17 of 2002 (and the Employment Equality Act, 1998 Code of Practice on Sexual Harassment and Harassment at Work S.I. No 78 of 2002). A copy of the updated policy should be given to all employees.
The Court recognises that there is a matter which remains unresolved between two employees, the Court recommends that management and the Union should agree the appointment of a professional mediator to resolve these differences without the apportionment of blame. This exercise should be conducted without delay.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
4th March, 2003______________________
CMCMDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Carmel McManus, Court Secretary.