FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SMYTHS BAR - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Constructive Dismissal
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant contends that she was bullied and harassed at work to the extent that she had no option but to leave the Company. The Company strongly deny the allegations made against it. The Claimant worked for the Company from June 2004 to April 2005 reporting to the head chef. The Claimant submitted that she had kept a record of all the instances of bullying and harassment and in January 2005 made a complaint to Management. The Company argued that at no stage did the Claimant ever make any complaint regarding the alleged treatment. An alleged incident of assault in April 2005 brought matters to a head and the Claimant left the premises as she could no longer tolerate the working environment. After the Claimant had left her employment the Company carried out an investigation into the allegations and contend that no staff witnessed or noticed any bullying or harassment. The claim before the Court is for compensation for constructive dismissal based on the Company's refusal to apply fair procedure.
On the 25th November, 2005 the worker referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th October, 2007. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The Claimant has submitted evidence that she was bullied and harassed at work. The matter was reported to management at the time but no action was taken. The incident in April 2005 was disturbing enough for our member to report the matter to the Gardai
2 The Company made no attempt to investigate the matter procedurally and did not discharge their duty of care to the Claimant. Every attempt was made by the Company to ignore the matter for almost a year after the event.
3 The Claimant was available at all times to meet the Company to try and resolve this dispute. The Company would not engage and therefore there was no alternative but to refer the matter to the Labour Court.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 At no stage during her employment did the Claimant ever report any incident of bullying or harassment to Management either verbally or in writing. After the Claimant had left the Company an investigation into the allegations was carried out and no evidence to support the claims could be found.
2 On the day of the final incident in April 2005 the Claimant requested to leave work early. Due to how busy they were the Head Chef refused the request, at which point the Claimant verbally abused him, took her coat and left the kitchen.
3 The Claimant signed a contract of employment with the Company which obligated her to use the grievance procedure in relation to disputes. The Claimant did not do so.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court was faced in this case with seriously conflicting evidence in regard to the facts of the case.
On the basis, however, that the manner in which the Claimant's departure was dealt with was procedurally unsound, the Court awards her compensation of €2000.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
31st October, 2007______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.