FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : JOHNSON AND JOHNSON (IRELAND) LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY MATHESON ORMSBY PRENTICE) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY O'MARA GERAGHTY MCCOURT) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Alleged sustained marginalisation and harassment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company specialises in health care products. The worker was employed by a company called Cordis as a sales representative since 1993. In 1996 the Company merged with Cordis which was integrated with the existing cardiology business of Johnson & Johnson. The worker is a Senior Sales Specialist with the Company.
In February, 2003, the worker made a complaint of bullying and harassment against the Managing Director and Division Manager in the Company. The complaint was investigated by an independent third party who found against the worker. The worker then referred her case to the Labour Court on the 30th of October, 2003, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. (The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation) A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13th of January, 2004. Following the hearing, the Court decided to appoint an Assessor to investigate the worker's complaints. The Assessor sent her report to the Court in June, 2004. She made recommendations on a number of issues - Company policy, promotion, car, pricing, communication structure between the worker and the Division Manager (details supplied to the Court). In regard to implementation the recommendations she recommended were as follows:-
"With the exception of the recommendation around the Company policy I recommend that negotiations on these matters would take place between the parties with a view to concluding agreements within six weeks of the date of a recommendation from the Labour Court. In the event that any of the issues are outstanding, that the outstanding issues(s) to be considered by the Labour Court.
Acceptance and implementation of these recommendations to be accepted by the worker in full and final settlement of any issues raised by her in her allegations against the Managing Director and the Division Manager and therefore, acceptance to be accompanied by a written statement withdrawing those allegations in full."
(The worker, Managing Director and Division Manager were named in the above Recommendation)
The Assessor's report was sent to the parties and they replied to the Court in July, 2004. The worker sought the following recommendation from the Court:-
1. Promotion to "Division Manager", a position that would have the equivalent status to that of "Franchise Manager".
2. Salary increase of €30,000 per annum or equivalent to that of Franchise Manager.
3. Direct reporting line to the Managing Director to be restored
4. Responsibilities in terms of pricing and negotiations to be restored.
5. Structured formal training to be provided.
6. Absolute clarity in writing as regards car entitlement.
7. Payment of legal and medical fees incurred.
Briefly, the Company's response was as follows:-
Company policy: the Company would continue to review its policy on bullying and harassment and ensure that it is consistent with good current H.R. practice.
Promotion of the worker: the Company's view is that the worker's failure to get promotion was due to her own inaction in not obtaining more experience.
Pricing and communication structure: the Managing Director was happy to convene a meeting between the worker and the Division Manager to clarify their mutual responsibilities.
The issue of the car has since been agreed between the parties.
A second Labour Court hearing was reconvened on the 15th of December, 2004. Before it took place, the parties sent in further submissions / observations.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.Since the Division Manager took over as the Manager of the Cordis franchise in 2000, the worker was no longer responsible for any pricing of products to accounts or in tendering / contracts negotiations. Her role is significantly at variance with her original job description (the worker supplied details of other changes since 2000).
2. Matters between the worker and the Company have not improved since the Assessors report was issued. She has been excluded from meetings / discussions that she had previously attended (details supplied to the Court) and feels more isolated than before. She finds the exclusion and the manner in which she is spoken to by the Division Manager very difficult and stressful.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The independent investigation rejected the worker's allegations in their entirety. He concluded that there was no bullying or exclusion of the worker, and that those against whom the complaints were made were exercising management responsibilities and were not bullying.
2. The Company did not deny the worker opportunities for promotion or deny her product training. The Company informed the worker that if she refused to transfer within divisions of the Company in order to gain the necessary experience, there would be no opportunities for promotion.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions of the parties in respect to the Assessor's report.
The Court is satisfied that the Assessor undertook a thorough and meticulous investigation of all the issues referred to the Court. Her conclusions and recommendations are comprehensive and provide a fair and balanced basis upon which the current dispute between the parties should be resolved. In these circumstances, the Court has no hesitation in adopting the report in its entirety. It recommends that it be accepted by the parties on the terms proposed by the Assessor, and that it be implemented within the timeframe which she recommended.
The Court wishes to express the hope that the parties would use this report as the basis upon which they might seek to put these matters behind them and proceed to restore and further develop an effective and harmonious working relationship.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
7th January, 2005______________________
CON/MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.