FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGIES LTD - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR17545/03/MMG.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim before the Court relates to a complaint of bullying and harassment made by it's member and the manner in which the Company investigated the matter. The Union is seeking apologies and retribution from the Company to alleviate the hurt felt by it's member. The Company rejects the claim on the basis that it was dealing with a specific incident and the matter was investigated and dealt with in the correct manner.
- The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. His findings and recommendation issued on the 5th July,2004, as follows:
- "A very complex case and one where a substantial amount of information was provided to the hearing.
The incident in question which necessitated the investigation was a single event in September 2003 and I am not of the opinion that this constitutes bullying and harassment but rather a serious altercation in the work place.
The investigation was conducted in accordance to procedures currently in place. The matter was further complicated by the fact that this code is currently being reviewed by the Company and the Union.
On these grounds the complaint of the actual investigation fails.
However with regard to bullying and harassment in the workplace in general I would recommend that the Company and Union work hard together to complete the review of this policy and issue same.
I further recommend that in future all matters of this nature be thoroughly investigated before referral to others or third parties. It is imperative that both the informal and formal processes are fully utilised and mutually beneficial resolutions sought and applied.”
The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation.
On the 22nd July, 2004, the Union appealed the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 7th October, 2004.
- "A very complex case and one where a substantial amount of information was provided to the hearing.
3. 1. The Rights Commissioners Recommendation opinion was that it was a one off incident in September 2003 and did not constitute bullying and harassment. The harassment had continued over a prolonged period of time andthe incident in September was the culmination of this and not an isolated incident.
2. The Rights Commissioner's statement regarding the investigation is not factual in that there were no procedures in place to deal with bullying and harassment, therefore, the investigation was not in accordance with procedures in place.The Company's Policy was only introduced in 2004.
3.Management are totally indifferent regarding Company Policy on Bullying and Harassment and treat people as they like with the knowledge and full support from Senior Management.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Management endeavoured in a positive way to bring this issue to a satisfactory conclusion and carried out it's investigation in a fair and reasonable fashion given all the circumstances. Before an internal formal investigation could be arranged the matter had been referred to a level in the organisation beyond local Management.
2. The incident in this case does not constitute bullying and harassment, which are clearly defined under the Company's bullying and harassment policy. This was the Rights Commissioner's opinion also.
3. The Company will not tolerate bullying and harassment, and Management is committed to providing a work environment free from bullying and harassment for all it's employees. It is incumbent on everyone to use the procedures in place to achieve this aim as necessary.
DECISION:
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court is of the view that the subject matter of the appeal before the Court arose as a result of the worker's failure to invoke the Company's formal Anti-Bullying/Harassment Policy combined with the Company's failure to treat the matter with the level of importance it deserved.
The Court understands that the Company policy was introduced in 2002 and updated in 2004. The 23rd September 2003 incident and the preceding incidents in the years 2001 and 2002, could potentially have been the subject of a formal complaint under the Company's procedures.
The worker's explanation to the Court, for not invoking the procedures related to her lack of confidence in management's ability at local level to deal with the matter. Consequently, she complained directly to management at corporate level. This effectively bypassed the Company's procedures and was taken before consulting with her Union representative. The Court finds such action unacceptable.
While formal complaints were not made in accordance with the Company's procedures, it is accepted that the Company were fully aware of the complaints being made. In such circumstances, the Court is of the view that there was a responsibility on the Company to enact those procedures, by writing to the worker inviting her to use the Company's procedures. A refusal at that stage could have been formally recorded.
The worker expressed no confidence in an investigation being carried out, as it would have been conducted by members of management. The Court is of the view that had an investigation become necessary, it would have been appropriate for an external investigator(s) to have been involved.
The Court is satisfied that the issues referred relate to the totality of the incidents mentioned above and to that extent, the Court varies the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
In conclusion, the Court finds that a level of responsibility must be attributed to both parties for the failure to deal with the matter effectively. The Court recommends that the Company should put in place an awareness campaign on their Anti-Bullying/Harassment Policy and it should organise an appropriate training programme for supervisors and management. The Court also recommends that the worker should abide by the Company's procedures in the event of any future difficulties of this nature.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
18th November, 2004______________________
JO'C/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.