FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : FÁS - THE TRAINING & EMPLOYMENT AUTHORITY - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY ASSOCIATION OF HIGHER CIVIL AND PUBLIC SERVANTS) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Alleged bullying, oppression and victimisation.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker began his career in banking in England in the 1960s. He joined AnCo in 1978 and became part of FAS when it was created in 1988. At the time he was a Grade 5b. The worker claims that continuous bullying, oppression and victimisation have hindered his career, leaving him isolated and sidelined. He claims that the Director General (formerly the Chairman) had threatened to remove him from his position as Manager of Internal Audit. A new Board of FAS was appointed in January, 1993 but the worker claims that the bullying by the Director General continued. He was appointed to the position of Manager Financial Standards in 1994 but maintains that changes under the PCW adversely affected his new position. A new Director General of FAS was appointed in 2000 and further restructuring took place in 2001. Again the worker claims that his position was undermined as he had to report to a new position of Director of Finance. As a result of the restructuring the number of Directors in FAS increases from 13 to 27 which, the worker claims, "diluted" his seniority. The worker believes that with his experience he should have been promoted to the position of Director of Finance. He applied for the post but claims that the application was ignored. FAS believes that the worker's case is really about promotion to the Director level rather than about alleged bullying.
The worker first referred his case to the Labour Court in June, 2005, but postponed it when FAS agreed to investigate his case, stating that not all internal procedures had been exhausted. He received a copy of the report in December, 2006. FAS asked for a review if the investigation but before this happened the worker, who was unhappy with the findings, again referred his case to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, on the 8th of August, 2007. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 7th of November, 2007. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker's career has been damaged and held back by unscrupulous methods adopted by the Director General, and it continues to suffer from the fallout of these decisions which were tolerated by the Executive and Board of FAS.
2. The worker accepted a new position in good faith and on specific assurances from the Assistant Director General. However, the terms and conditions of his contract were disrespected and breached.
3. The loss of status as a result of the restructuring has damaged his reputation both professionally and personally.
4. The investigation in 2005, although it did not address all the worker's concerns, found in his favour on a number of points including organisational bullying by FAS (details supplied to the Court).
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Between 2000 and 2007 the worker applied on eight occasions for promotion to Director level through open competition. None of these applications were successful. The worker is now seeking to have the decision of independent review boards set aside and to be unilaterally promoted to the position of Director in FAS. This ignores the reality of the situation that there is already a legitimately selected Director of Finance in situ.
2. The worker has stated that the redress sought is for the"Director scale to apply to my position with effect from 19th December, 2001."FAS has made many efforts to assuage the worker's perceived grievances. However, they have all failed because of his implacable demand that he be "made" a Director.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the detailed submissions made by the parties to this dispute and recommends that a review by an agreed person, based on the same terms of reference of the external investigator's report, should be conducted within a tightly agreed timeframe and that the parties should accept the findings and outcome of that review as final closure of this long-running dispute.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
21st November, 2007______________________
CON.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.