FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal Against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation Ir20984/04/MR
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker joined the Company in November 1991 as a machinist. He now operates in the machine shop as a lathe-turning operator. The dispute concerns an incident that happened on the 16th of February, 2004, in the machine shop. The worker claims that he was talking to a colleague in relation to a work issue when he was approached by a cell/team leader (not his own) who told him "go down to your machine and do some work, your cell leader can handle any problem". The worker felt that he was being intimidated by the cell leader and reported the incident to his own team leader. A number of meetings took place involving the four principals, i.e. two workers and two team leaders plus management. At a final meeting with the worker on the 5th of March, 2004, the worker was told that an apology would not be forthcoming from the cell leader (which is what the worker was seeking to resolve the issue). At this stage management had put in place procedures which would eliminate a repeat of the incident in the future. However, the worker was unhappy and appealed the decision to management which did not uphold the appeal.
The workers referred his case to a Rights Commissioner and a hearing took place in January, 2005. The Rights Commissioners recommendation is as follows:
Accordingly, I now recommend that the worker and SIPTU should accept that there is no longer any point in pursuing the investigation of his initial complaint against the Team Leader, while at the same time maintaining his right to make a formal complaint alleging harassment if he has evidence to support such a complaint.
(The worker was named in the above recommendation.)
The worker appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 23rd of September, 2005, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th of July, 2006, in Limerick.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union believe that the Rights Commissioner did not give due consideration to the evidence and information presented. The long delay between the Rights Commissioner hearing and recommendation (almost eight months) did not help the worker's case.
2. The worker believes that he was being "picked on" by the team leader involved in the incident as this was not the first issue between the two. It was not the team leader's place to tell the worker what to do.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has acted fairly at all times during the thorough investigation of the incident. It did not deem it appropriate to instruct the team leader to apologise as it was not unusual for team leaders to instruct employees whom they might not have direct supervision over. The Company immediately put in place procedures to ensure that the incident would not happen again.
DECISION:
The complaint before the Court arose from an incident, which occurred in February 2004, when a Team Leader directed a worker, who did not report to him, to return to his duties. The worker concerned stated that he was provoked by this Team Leader and made a complaint to management.
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court is of the view that this is a matter which should, at this stage, be brought to conclusion and thereby concurs with the findings and recommendation of the Rights Commissioner.
The Court notes that while management put in place new procedures to eliminate the possibility of further occurrences, the incident referred to was one where management was within its management right to exercise.
Accordingly, the Court upholds the Rights Commissioner’s recommendation and dismisses the appeal.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
1st August, 2006______________________
CON/EWDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.