FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MBNA IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. 'Acknowledgement, apology and compensation'
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker's case is that she had to resign from the job due to the circulation of untrue rumours in the Company regarding her mental health. The rumours were mentioned at a Rights Commissioner hearing in relation to a case her mother had taken against the Company. During the hearing, the worker claims that one of her mother's files was produced which had an entry by one of the Company's management team. The entry stated that the worker had been checked into a 'mental hospital' in Sligo by her mother. Her mother denies that she ever made such a statement.
The worker was extremely angry and hurt by the statement and believed that it became common knowledge in her job. As a result of the stress she suffered she felt she had no option except to resign her position. The Company's case is that the worker's mother did make a statement relating to her daughter in conversation with the manager. It held an internal investigation into the issue.
The worker referred her case to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act , 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th of July, 2005 in Sligo. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3 (1) The worker's mother denies that she made any statement saying her daughter was in a 'mental hospital' . She did say that she was in St. Joseph's hospital but this had nothing to do with mental illness.
(2) The worker spoke to a number of people in management, none of whom offered any assistance. They refused to remove the entry from her mother's file.
(3) The worker was informed by a colleague that other employees had been discussing her mental health and saying that she had suffered a breakdown. She did not wish to name the colleague or involve her in the situation when the investigation was in progress.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. (1) The Company held a formal investigation into the worker's complaint. The worker claimed that the rumours about her mental health had been leaked by personnel although she could not provide any evidence to support her allegations. The Company takes the allegation very seriously.
(2) While the Company can sympathise with the stress the worker suffered, it is clear that the conversation with the worker's mother took place. The manager involved recorded it as a contemporaneous note.
(3) The Company could not re-open the investigation as the worker refused to name any colleagues who might have helped her case. She accepted the outcome of the investigation at the time.
RECOMMENDATION:
In the Court's view the Company acted unreasonably in refusing to remove the offending minute from the worker's file on being asked to do so. The Court is further satisfied that the minute is inaccurate and is unlikely to have been made contemporaneously in that it refers to a meeting with the claimant's mother. The Court accepts that no such meeting took place and that the only discussion between the claimant's mother and the manager in question was by telephone.
However, in the circumstances of this case, the Court is not satisfied that the claimant has made out a case of constructive dismissal. It was open to her to have pursued the matter further through either internal or external procedures before resigning and the Court does not accept that she had no option but to resign.
Nonetheless, the Company acted unfairly in relation to the claimant and this should be acknowledged. Accordingly, the Court recommends as follows:
- The Company should furnish the claimant with a full apology for the distress which she experienced in consequence of the content of the minute becoming known.
- All written records relating to the claimant's health should be removed from the Company's files and furnished to the claimant.
- The Company should make a donation in the amount of €5,000 to a charity nominated by the claimant.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
23rd August, 2005______________________
CON/DHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.