FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : FAS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal of Recommendation of Rights Commissioner R-036043-IR-05/GF
BACKGROUND:
2. In 2005, a number of Strategic Planning Workshops were organised nationwide for FÁS employees, the purpose of which was to consult with employees and elicit feedback as part of a strategy review process. The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its member, the Claimant, in relation to an allegation that the Claimant was unfairly treated following his participation in the process.
- The Union contends that the Claimant was being subjected to unnecessary disciplinary action as a direct result of feedback given by him as part of the internal communication process. This included the sanction of Verbal Warning being placed on his file.The Claimant was subsequently informed that his feedback was not the subject of disciplinary action and that there would be no-further occurrences of such treatment.The Union further contends that the Claimant was singled out for disciplinary action in relation to an alleged incident on the day of the workshop. The Claimant was advised that a number of people sitting at his table had been talking during a presentation but he was the only person brought to a disciplinary meeting in relation to the alleged incident. The Union is seeking an apology from FÁS to its member, which will restore his good name within the organisation and furthermore will lead to an enhanced and improved communications structure within the FÁS training centre moving forward.
Management rejects the claim on the basis that it did not proceed with a formal disciplinary hearing into the matter and no disciplinary sanction was ever issued. FÁS did issue an apology for speaking with the Claimant in relation to his behaviour and in an attempt to reach a resolution it gave the Union a written assurance that feedback, whether positive of negative, would not be an issue for disciplinary procedures now or in the future.
- The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and Recommendation. His Recommendation issued on the 30th November, 2005, as follows:
- The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation.
- The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and Recommendation. His Recommendation issued on the 30th November, 2005, as follows:
- On the 5th January, 2006, the Union appealed the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th April, 2006.
- On the 5th January, 2006, the Union appealed the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th April, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The initiation of disciplinary procedures against FÁS employees in cases such as this is unwarranted. An apology is needed in this case as the Claimant's exemplary record of two and a half years excellent service within FÁS has been clearly tarnished.
2. The Claimant should not be singled out for disciplinary procedure as a direct consequence of Management's failure to maintain order at the workshop if this was the case. The Claimant was not the only person allegedly talking during the presentation and should not be treated differently than others who allegedly also spoke during the presentation. Management's suggestion that the Claimant's behaviour was intimidatory is clearly unfounded and unacceptable. Employees should not be fearful about putting forward their views through feedback, and especially when such views and feedback were requested. A publicly displayed apology would clearly send out such a signal to all concerned and this needs to happen to instil confidence back into the communication process for the good of all concerned.
3. FÁS, in this case, has not lived up to its commitments under the disciplinary procedure. The Claimant was not given reasonable time or facilities to explain his position. Discipline will not be implemented pending the outcome of procedures laid down by this agreement, yet the Claimant was advised that a verbal warning would be placed on his file.
FÁS ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is not reasonable for the Claimant to object to being reprimanded about his behaviour in this instance and to demand an apology. Management was not satisfied with the Claimant's participation in the strategic planning process and subsequently outlined this dissatisfaction to the Claimant as it is entitled to do.
2. No disciplinary sanction was taken against the Claimant in relation to the matter. FÁS acted fairly and reasonably in all dealings with the Claimant.
3. FÁS agrees with the Rights Commissioners practical recommendation that enough has been said in relation to this matter and that the parties now should shake hands and put the matter behind them.
DECISION:
It was confirmed to the Court in the course of the hearing that FAS does not regard the events giving rise to this dispute as misconduct on the part of the individual concerned. It is further confirmed that no such allegation was made or intended against the individual at any time.
The Court recommends that this assurance should be accepted in the spirit in which it was given and on that basis the matter should be regarded as closed.
On this basis the Rights Commissioner's recommendation is affirmed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
8th May, 2006______________________
JO'CChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.