FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CORK CITY COUNCIL - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Dispute oncerning the outcome of an internal investigation of an incident involving the worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a worker who has been employed by the Council for a number of years. In May, 2001 an incident occurred between the worker and another employee at one of the Council's depots. The Council carried an investigation into the incident and took disciplinary against the other worker. The Council subsequently received new information from another worker not interviewed in the first investigation. It reopened the investigation and issued revised recommendations which tempered the original disciplinary action, and also issued a warning to the claimant. The Councils' findings were communicated to the claimant in May, 2002. The claimant rejected the findings. He sought to refer the issue to a Rights Commissioner for investigation but the Council objected to such a referral. On the 12th December, 2002 the claimant referred a complaint to the Labour Court under section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held in Cork on the 8th October, 2003.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker does not accept the outcome of the Council's investigation as conveyed to him in its letter of 16th May, 2002. At all times during the investigation the claimant related truthfully the sequence of events which occurred, which had a traumatic effect on him and continue to do so to the present time.
2. In 2001 he contacted the Health and Safety Authority(HSA) which investigated the incident and found in his favour.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The evidence of the new witness contradicted the direct evidence of the claimant. The claimant's statement, always disputed by the other party, was brought further into doubt by the evidence of the new witness.
2. The investigation could not at any time conclusively prove either party's version of events as there were no witnesses to the alleged altercation. As the evidence of the new witness directly contradicted that of the claimant and supported the evidence of the other worker involved, Management felt it was necessary to warn the claimant that giving misleading statements to an investigation would have been the subject of disciplinary action had it been proven to be the case.
3. The other worker involved in the incident was found guilty of inappropriate behaviour, suspended without pay for three days, and transferred to a location where he would not have regular contact with the claimant. He was also formally warned that any recurrence of behaviour such as this would to disciplinary action including dismissal.
4. The claimant requested the HSA to become involved. An inspector visited the Council's office in August, 2001 and was appraised of the investigation as it then stood. She accepted that an appropriate investigation had been carried out. The inspector was furnished with a copy of the revised outcome in September, 2002. The HSA has not been in contact with the Council since then.
5. The Council objected to the reference to a Rights Commissioner on the basis that the claimant had not advised the Council of the nature of his dispute. The Council clearly stated to the worker in June, 2002 that, if such clarity was forthcoming, the Council would reconsider its position.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties finds it difficult to identify any evidence of significance that was produced at the second inquiry, which would justify modification of the findings of the first inquiry.
However, the Court is extremely concerned at the picture presented at the hearing in relation to the climate prevailing in the workplace. The picture is one of interpersonal tensions and an ongoing atmosphere of fear and anxiety.
The Court therefore recommends that the management, as a matter of urgency, address the working relationship in the area, taking whatever action is necessary to eliminate the atmosphere of fear that seems to exist for many people in the section. This should be done with the help of a third party if necessary and by taking whatever management decisions are required.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
20th October,2003______________________
todChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.