FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-033363-Ir-05/TB.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim related to an alleged complaint of bullying and harassment made by the worker against his Supervisor and Manager. The complaint was the subject of an investigation in accordance with the Civil Service Code on Bullying and Harassment. The investigation concluded that the case against the Supervisor could not be upheld, and the worker accepted this. Regarding the Manager, the investigators found that she had engaged in a form of "mild bullying". Following receipt of the report, management informed the Union that it could not uphold the complaint against the Manager. Although the Union was invited to lodge an appeal against the decision it choose to refer the case to a Rights Commissioner and his recommendation was as follows:
"I recommend that each party now indicates to the other whether they accept or reject the findings and conclusions of the investigation team. They should then take the appropriate action, in accordance with procedures, which follows on from their responses.
In the circumstances of this case I recommend that the claimant be paid €1,000 in compensation".
The OPW appealed the Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 21st of September, 2005, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 18th of January, 2006.
OPW's ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is the duty of the Personnel Officer to consider whether a complaint is upheld having regard to the investigator's report. Section 7.8 of the Civil Service guide on Bullying and Harassment confirms this.In fairness to both parties, a Personnel Officer could not abrogate all responsibility by automatically accepting the conclusions of the investigators.
2. Management did not accept the investigators' report because no basis had been adduced to support a claim of bullying. As such, there is no reason why compensation of €1,000 should be paid.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Case against the Manager was upheld by the investigator. Management is "cherry picking" the report which is not acceptable to the Union. The worker has accepted the findings of the investigation.
2. The worker is currently receiving medical treatment and counselling for stress and will be for the foreseeable future.
3. The Rights Commissioner found that management did not have the right to reverse the decision or conclusion of the investigation team.
DECISION:
It is acknowledged by management that the investigators conducted a thorough and impartial inquiry. The Court is fully satisfied that the report is clear and coherent and is based on the evidence adduced in the course of the investigation. In these circumstances, the Court cannot accept that the Personnel Manager was entitled to set aside the finding of facts reached by the investigators on the basis of his subjective opinion of the conclusions reached.
The Court affirms the Rights Commissioner's finding and the appeal is disallowed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
27th January, 2006______________________
CON/MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.