FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-031723-IR-04/TB
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant was employed by the Office of Public Works (OPW) as a seasonal General Operative/Bus Driver at the Bru na Boinne Visitor Centre in Co. Meath from 1999 to 2004. The dispute before the Court relates to issues arising during the Claimants contract of the 9th April to the 27th October, 2004. He claims that he was treated less favourably than his fellow employees in respect of the allocation of work on Public Holidays and he further claims that he was shunned and intimidated by a fellow employee and that the Respondent took no action to correct the situation. The Claimant's contract was terminated in May 2004. The Company rejects the claim.
- The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and Recommendation. His findings and Recommendation issued on the 15th September, 2005, as follows:
- “While it is clear that the respondent did not intentionally discriminate against the claimant in respect of the allocation of Public Holidays it is admitted that a mistake was made which had the effect of an unfair allocation of public holidays insofar as the claimant is concerned.
In respect of that matter I recommend that the respondent pay the claimant €200 in settlement of the complaint.
In respect of the intimidation complaint it would appear to me that certainly the incident complained of which was brought to the attention of the company was a matter more for the civil authorities than for the Respondent. Concerning the other matters complained of it is clear that the claimant did not avail of the comprehensive bullying and harassment policy, which is available to all employees of the respondent.
I recommend that the claimant now consider this aspect of the matter to be closed.”
On the 19th October, 2005, the Claimant appealed the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, on the grounds that the Rights Commissioner had rejected his complaint that he had been subjected to intimidation by another individual. That the Rights Commissioner held that he did not avail of the Comprehensive bullying and harassment policy available; that statements made both orally and in writing to the Rights Commissioner by the Respondent representatives were inaccurate and untrue and that as a result of the OPW's negligence and refusal to afford him a grievance procedure he was at a substantial loss in being unable to complete his contract.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 11th January, 2006. - “While it is clear that the respondent did not intentionally discriminate against the claimant in respect of the allocation of Public Holidays it is admitted that a mistake was made which had the effect of an unfair allocation of public holidays insofar as the claimant is concerned.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Claimant contends that he was never made aware, either orally or in writing, of the bullying and harassment policy. The Code of Practice on Grievance Procedure was not available to him since it was only signed on the 7th December, 2004,seven months after his employment finished.
2. The Claimant contends that he did report his grievances to his manager and that it was as a result of management's failure to deal with such that he referred the matter to the Rights Commissioner. He contends that what he has endured is an injustice perpetrated by the negligence of the OPW.
3. Had the OPW afforded him a Grievance Procedure, the outcome would have been favourable to him and he would have been in a position to continue his contract. Because of this failure he was at a substantial loss financially, in the region of €13,000.00
OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Claimant, in pursuit of his grievance, has now made three third party referrals, under the Organisation of Working Time Act, Fixed Term Work Act and the current dispute under the Industrial Relations Acts. The OPW contends that the Claimant has harboured a sense of grievance since quitting their employment and the continuation with this series of speculative referrals is entirely frivolous and vexatious.
2. The Public Holiday matter has been resolved by the OPW's acceptance of the Rights Commissioners Recommendation. He further found that the intimidation issue was a civil matter between the parties and not a matter for the employer. His recommendations are well founded.
DECISION:
Having considered the oral and written submissions of the parties, the Court considers that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation was correct. Accordingly, the Court upholds the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner and dismisses the appeal.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
6th February, 2006______________________
JO'CDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.