FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ARCHITECTURAL & METAL SYSTEMS LTD (REPRESENTED BY PATRICK BUCKLEY & CO SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Alleged bullying and discrimination.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed by the Company from March 2003, to December 2003, as a General Operative. The Union alleges that during the workers employment he was subjected to acts of bullying, harassment and discrimination on grounds of colour in that he received racist remarks. The Company rejects the claim on the basis that no complaint was conveyed to them by the worker at any time during his employment regarding the alleged claims.
- On the 5th August, 2004, the workerreferred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 4th May 2005.
The worker agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
3. 1. The worker was subjected to acts of serious and aggravated incidents of Bullying and Harassment, where he found himself isolated to the point where he ate alone, was the butt of racist jokes and abuse of both verbal and physical contents.
2. The worker sought transfers to different work areas in a bid to avoid this behaviour and was refused. He was cautioned about his timekeeping in relation to an instance where others were also late to work. He contends that he was singled out for cautioning. When the worker was dismissed, he contends that he was told he was not fitting in and that was the reason for dismissal. It is the Union's contention that the alleged incidents were brought to the attention of the Company but that no corrective action was taken.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is dismayed at the allegation made by the worker. It is the employer's contention that the worker never reported either verbally or in writing any incidents of bullying, harassment or discrimination during his employment. If these alleged incidents were reported to management, it would have been investigated fully and the matter resolved at the time. Management have carried out numerous interviews of Managers, Supervisors and the workers former colleagues and nobody has any recollection of any incidents of bullying, harassment or discrimination having either taken place or being reported.
3. The Company believes that the allegations are totally unfounded. The worker requested moves to areas where a high level of skill was necessary and the Company did not agree to the move. He was moved to another area where it was felt that it would be better able to assess his abilities. The worker was cautioned on what was considered to be a large number of absences from work. At no time did the worker indicate that he was the recipient of bullying, harassment or racist remarks.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Union submitted a claim on behalf of a worker who claimed that he was subjected to incidents of bullying and harassment by colleagues in the workplace and that he was dismissed on the grounds of his colour.
The Company stated that no complaints of bullying, harassment or discrimination were ever brought to management's attention either verbally or in writing during his nine months of employment. The Company stated that the claimant, who worked in the warehouse area, sought a transfer to the Fabrication area on the grounds that he wished to have a change in his place of work. The Company refused this transfer, as he was not technically qualified to work in the Fabrication Area, which involved a higher level of skill and mechanical aptitude. He was transferred into the Thermal Break area instead.
The Company submitted details of the reasons for his dismissal, details of warnings given and the reasons why his probationary period was extended for a period of three months.
The worker's explanation to the Court, for not invoking the grievance procedures related to fear of reprisal, as he was a relatively new employee. His complaint to the Labour Court was made after his employment was terminated.
The Court is satisfied that no evidence has been submitted to prove that his dismissal was due to his colour. The Court is also satisfied that as no complaints of bullying, harassment or discrimination were made to management during the period of his employment that it was not possible to carry out an investigation into the allegations that have since being made.
The Court cannot find any evidence to suggest that the Company would have been unwilling to respond to the claimant's complaints of bullying and harassment. Therefore, the Court does not find in favour of the claimant and dismissed his claim for compensation.
However, the Court finds fault with the Company for not having in place a policy to specifically address complaints of this nature. In this regard the Court recommends that the employer produce a written, formal policy on Anti-Bullying and Harassment, taking account of the Code of Practice Detailing "Procedures for Addressing Bullying in the Workplace" (S.I. No: 17 of 2002) made under Section 42 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 (and the Employment Equality Act, 1998 Code of Practice on Sexual Harassment and Harassment at Work S.I. No. 78 of 2002). A copy of the updated policy should be given to all employees.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
19th May, 2005______________________
JO'C/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.