FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : I.S.A. TRADING LTD - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR19524/04/TB - double appeal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed by the Company from the 7th November 2003 until the time of his dismissal on the 16th April 2004. He claims that his dismissal was a result of complaints of bullying and harassment he made against his department manager.
In February 2004 the worker requested a meeting with his department manager and a director of the Company to discuss his complaints, following which he was suspended. On the 9th February 2004 a meeting took place at which the director was present. The worker was then given a verbal warning and this was confirmed in a letter from the HR Department. The worker appealed the warning but his appeal was rejected. A request for the Company's anti-bullying policy was ignored. On the 16th April 2004 the worker was dismissed.
The issue was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation.His recommendation issued on the 12th November 2004, as follows:-
"I recommend that the respondent company develop a policy on bullying based on the codes of practice drawn up by the Labour Relations Commission. In relation to the claimants specific complaint it is clear that the respondent did not follow its own policy which would have involved its H.R. Department in the investigation of the complaint.
On balance I find in favour of the claimant and recommend that he be paid €2,500 in compensation."
The Company appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 23rd December and the worker appealed the recommendation on the 14th December 2004 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 26th July, 2005.
The Company sent in a submission but did not attend the hearing.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company did not adhere to their policy procedure as stated.
2. No written or final warning was issued prior to my dismissal.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has developed its own policy on bullying which is included in a document entitled "Equal Opportunities Policy", "EOP". This is available to employees on the Company Intranet.
2. The Company believe that the procedures recommended in the Code of Practice issued by DETE under Section 42 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 are contained in the document "EOP" mentioned above.
3. The Company's HR Manager did advise the local operation director on how to carry out the investigation into alleged bullying and on what action to take following the outcome of the investigation.
DECISION:
The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties. In the first instance, the Court is disappointed at the decision of the Company not to appear, as this reduces the opportunities for information-gathering and clarification by means of cross-questioning at a hearing.
It is the view of the Court, on the basis of the evidence presented, that the Company failed to deal with this case in accordance with its own procedures as set out and also in accordance with the normal principles of natural justice. In particular, the Court finds the behaviour of the Company in the course of the stated act of dismissal, to be abhorrent.
The Court, while confirming the thrust of the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation, increases the compensatory award to €3,000 and so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
July, 2005______________________
MG.Raymond McGee
Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.