FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : PORT OF NEW ROSS COMPANY LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY PETER O'CONNOR & SON SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioners Recommendation R-036782-Ir-05/TB
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment with the Company on 9th October, 1996. He claims that over a four year period he was subjected to bullying and harassment by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Company and the Chairperson of the Company. He listed oral slurs, personal insults, intimidatory statements, gestures and threats. He first raised the issue in November, 2003. His case is as follows:
The worker received a copy of the Company's"Policy on preventing and dealing with Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace". He followed procedures and referred his case to the CEO. His complaint was supposed to be subject to an impartial investigation but, in this case, the investigation was conducted by the CEO who was one of the people against whom the complaint was made. As such he could not get a fair hearing. The CEO found that no bullying and harassment had taken place.
The Company's case is that there were no further incidents until October, 2005, when it was informed that the worker was referring a case of bullying and harassment against the CEO to the Rights Commissioner's service. A meeting was held on the 1st of December, 2005, at which the worker aired his grievances. The meeting ended with handshakes and the Company presumed that a line had been drawn under all matters. The Company claims that it was surprised to receive notification of a Rights Commissioner's hearing, in relation to bullying and harassment, which took place on the 26th June, 2006. Whilst awaiting the Rights Commissioner's recommendation the worker applied for and was successful in getting voluntary redundancy. He left the Company on the 20th July, 2006.
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was as follows:
"No details were given at the hearing, nor were there any instances described, which could reasonably be described bullying.
I recommend that SIPTU should accept the invitation of the company to meet and discuss any problems, which the claimant may have, and to agree a process by which these could be discussed and dealt with."
The worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's recommendation to the Labour Court on the 8th September, 2006, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 25th June, 2008, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker did not receive natural justice during the Company's internal investigation. He could not do so as the CEO was, in effect, being asked to investigate himself and could not be impartial. The Company should not have chosen him to conduct the investigation. According to the Company's own policy the investigator should have been impartial.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. As with all employees the worker's grievances and concerns were dealt with in an appropriate and professional manner.
2. The Company believed that all matters had been settled following the meeting in December, 2005. It would have followed through on the Rights Commissioner's recommendation to meet and discuss any remaining issues with worker but he was no longer with the Company as he had taken voluntary redundancy.
DECISION:
Having given careful consideration to the accounts from all sides of the meeting which took place on 1st December, 2005, to discuss the worker’s grievance with the Company, the Court is satisfied that an agreement was reached between the parties on the day that matters were resolved and that that was the end of the matter. The Court is satisfied that this meeting was in accordance with the Company’s “Policy on Preventing and Dealing with Bullying/Harassment at Work”, intended at that stage to handle the complaint through its informal procedures.
Furthermore, the Court is satisfied that the worker was informed by letter dated 7th November, 2005, of the nature of the proposed meeting to be held on 1st December, 2005. Therefore, the Court does not accept his contention that he did not know beforehand what the meeting was going to be about.
The Rights Commissioner found no evidence to substantiate an allegation of bullying and, accordingly, recommended that his Union representative should accept an invitation given by the Company to meet and discuss any problems which the worker may have had and to agree a process by which these grievances could be dealt with. While the Court concurs with the Rights Commissioner, due to the passage of time and the fact that the worker is no longer employed by the Company, the Court does not consider it viable to find in favour of this recommendation.
In conclusion, therefore, the Court decides that the worker’s appeal of the Rights Commissioner’s recommendation fails.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
28th July, 2008______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.