FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ARGOS LTD - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY MANDATE) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner’S Recommendation R-044379-IR-06/JT.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a home and general merchandise retailer and has traded in the Republic since January 1996.
The Worker concerned is employed as a Customer Advisor and also fulfils the role of Mandate Shop Steward at the store. The Worker attended an investigation meeting as an employee's union representative on the 3rd January, 2006. The Worker subsequently lodged a complaint against the conduct of the Argos manager at that meeting, in writing, to the Store Manager, pending further advice from the HR department.The Worker made a formal complaint on 30th January, 2006.
Some correspondence ensued between the Worker and the UK head office of the Company. The Worker was not satisfied with the outcome.
The issue was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. His recommendation issued on the 25th June, 2007, as follows:
"It is noted that both parties reached an agreement on the matter therefore I record the above settlement on the matter."
The Worker appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 19th July, 2007, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The grounds for appeal were that no agreement was reached on the matter by both parties and that the amount of compensation as indicated by the Rights Commissioner did not adequately reflect the trauma and stress suffered by the Worker. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 7th November, 2007, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company have clear policies in relation to dignity at work and the Union maintains that the actions of the Manager in question were an affront to dignity at work.
2. The Worker initiated the formal grievance process operated by the Company in her letter of complaint of 30th January, 2007. At no stage of the investigation did the Company interview the Worker regarding her allegations in line with their own policy.
3. The Worker feels the Company dealt with her complaint in a dismissive manner thereby causing her considerable emotional distress, which has been exacerbated by the Company's inability to properly investigate the matter in a thorough and timely manner.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company recognise that elements of the investigation relating to the Worker's formal complaint could have been handled better. That was said to the Worker in person and in writing.
2. The Company offered the Worker a €300 payment as a goodwill gesture along with a standard confidentiality agreement. This was initially accepted by the Worker but subsequently rejected. The Company then offered a straightforward apology which was similarly rejected.
3. While no agreement was reached at the Rights Commissioner hearing, the decision took into account the above offer and the Company maintains that in effect it supports the basis for settlement that had been reached previously.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the Court considers, in all the circumstances that the Claimant should receive compensation of €300 and a written apology from the Company. The Company should also pay a further €300 to a charity nominated by the Claimant.
The Court so decides and sets aside the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
4th December, 2007______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.