FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BUS EIREANN - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Alleged bullying and harassment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker concerned was employed as a temporary bus driver with Dublin Bus from 4th January 1990 to 10th August 1990 when he resigned. He was employed as a temporary driver by Bus Eireann on 29th January 1991 and was appointed to the regular staff on 16th February 1992, He was appointed an inspector on 24th March 1996. Since December 2002 he has had responsibility for training.
On 12th February 2004 the Worker applied for a vacancy as an Inspector Class I, which was a lower graded position. He was not the successful candidate.
The Worker then wrote to the Company's Manager, Personnel and Training, as the Worker needed to know, understand and accept, why he was unsuccessful, to enable him to put the issue behind him. He was convinced he was not treated fairly and that he was being penalized in retaliation for a row he had had with a member of the interview panel concerning safety issues, prior to being interviewed. He was also concerned that another member of the interview panel had expressed positive views in relation to another candidate for the position, who subsequently became the successful candidate.
A number of meetings took place between the Worker and the Services Manager, and between the Worker with his Union representative and the Manager, Personnel and Training.
By letter dated 2nd September, 2005, to the Manager, Personnel and Training, the Worker made a complaint of bullying and harassment relating to the meeting he had with the Services Manager and other issues. He also wrote to the Company's Equality and Diversity Officer concerning his complaints. A meeting took place between the Worker and the Equality and Diversity Officer who suggested pursuing an informal route to resolution. The Worker opted for formal investigation.
The formal investigation by the Company into the Worker's complaints began in December, 2006, and was completed in October, 2007.
On 14th December, 2006, the Worker referred a case of bullying and harassment, unfair treatment in a job vacancy to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th November, 2007.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker believes that he was not treated fairly during the job interview process, and that the decision was prejudiced and predetermined.
2. The Worker claims that during a meeting the Services Manager's manner and tone were intimidating and that the Services Manger dealt with his questions in a contemptuous way so as to bully him into giving up his quest for the truth.
3. The Worker is of the opinion that no serious effort was made by the Company to investigate or seek resolution to his complaint of bullying and harassment; the handling of his concerns regarding the Country Mobile Vacancy or to address the safety matters which he had raised again and again.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company submits that every effort was made to deal with the Worker's complaints. Numerous meetings took place in an effort to find a satisfactory solution to the issues that concerned him
2. The allegations of bullying and harassment were investigated formally under the agreed procedures which fully conform to the current legislative requirements and conforms to best practice.
3. The formal investigation was carried out by two trained investigators in accordance with formal procedure. The investigators acted independently.
RECOMMENDATION:
The claim before the Court concerns an allegation of Bullying and Harassment against the Company. The Claimant also submitted that he had been unfairly treated in his application for a job vacancy in March 2004. The Claimant sought an investigation into the allegations made.
Having given careful consideration to the claim, the Court notes that the Company’s “Dignity & Respect” procedures, which deal with complaints of Harassment and Workplace Bullying, were invoked in this case and both the informal and formal procedures were availed of by the Worker concerned. As part of the formal procedures an internal investigation was conducted into his complaints. However, the Claimant was dissatisfied with the results.
It is clear to the Court that the difficulties which arose between the parties stem essentially from the Claimant’s concerns over safety matters within the Company which, he feels, are being ignored. The Company, on the other hand, indicated to the Court that it has made every attempt to reassure him of their compliance with all safety regulations. Matters have now reached the point where the Claimant finds it impossible to return to work and in consequence has been on sick leave for a considerable period of time.
Having given careful consideration to the detailed written and oral submissions made by the parties the Court is of the view that the priority for all parties at this point should be to overcome whatever difficulties exist so as to try to restore a proper working relationship. For this purpose the Court recommends that an agreed external mediator should be appointed by the Company to work with the parties as the internal procedures have failed to resolve the problem. The mediation process should be focused on restoring normality in the working environment without the apportionment of blame.
If the parties fail to agree on a mediator within two weeks of the issuing of this Recommendation the Court will nominate such a person.
Given the history of this case so far, the Court recommends that the matter should be given priority and the mediation exercise should be conducted without delay.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
4th December, 2007______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.