FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MASTERCHEF HOSPITALITY MUNSTER LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR31432/04/MR
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns an appeal by the employee of Rights Commissioners Recommendation IR31432/04/MR.
The worker in question was employed by the company for a period of three years during which time he experienced difficulties with senior management which culminated in a formal complanit of bullying against three members of the management team. The complaint was investigated but was not upheld. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioners who issued his Recommendation on the 25th March 2005 as follows:
"I now formally recommend that the worker should accept that his employment relationship with Masterchefs Hospitality Munster Ltd has irretrievably broken down and that he should agree to voluntarily resign at an early date from his employment with the company.
In return, the Company should agree, on a once-off and totally exceptional basis, to make an all-in ex gratia lump sum payment of €15,000 to the employee, with this payment to be made on as tax efficient a basis as possible.
The parties should both accept that this payment would be in full and final settlement of all matters in dispute between the parties. They should further commit themselves to treating all the matters in dispute, including in particular the terms of this Recommendation, in the strictest confidence".
The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
On the 5th April 2005, the worker appealed the Rights Commissioners 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 29th June 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker has suffered extreme stress as a result of the treatment received by him at work which has not been reflected in the compensation awarded.
2. The worker has been, and remains unable to return to work at present due to health problems caused as a result of this issue.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS
4. 1.A thorough investigation was carried out into the allegations and they were found to be unsubstantiated. The Worker was invited to attend a meeting to discuss the findings of the investigation but instead opted to bring the matter before a Rights Commissioner.
2. Management acted fairly and professionaly towards the worker in the processing of the complaint. The worker in question did not follow the agreed grievance procedures of the company
3. Concession of the claim before the Court will undermine managements position in the future on similar issues.
DECISION:
The Court has considered the worker’s appeal of the Right’s Commissioner’s recommendation and having considered all the circumstances, the Court decides that the compensation recommended by the Rights Commissioner should be increased to
€21,000 in full and final settlement of all claims against the company. The Court recommends that all other aspects of the Rights Commissioners recommendation should be upheld.
The Court also notes that the employer agreed to provide a reference.
The appeal is allowed and the Rights Commissioners recommendation is varied accordingly.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
18th July 2005______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.