FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : AN POST - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS UNION (CWU)) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal of a Recommendation of a Rights Commissioner R-057409-IR-07/POB.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker concerned is employed with An Post as a Postperson/Driver working in the Cork region for nearly 25 years. For a number of years he contended that he had been unfairly treated by An Post Management.
In 2007 the Worker complained to the Regional HR Manager that he was being discriminated against by a Delivery Services Manager. The Worker and his Union representative met with the HR Manager on two occasions in February and April 2007. The meetings failed to resolve the matter to the satisfaction of the Worker.
The Worker and his Union attempted at all levels of Management to address his grievances through the agreed procedures without satisfaction. The Union contends that throughout the period Management of An Post failed to respond to correspondence and representations and totally ignored these and consequently ignored the agreed grievance procedures.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. His recommendation issued on the 13th November 2008.
The Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's recommendation to the Labour Court on the 5th January 2009, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 31st July 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.While the Company has accepted an acknowledged its failure to respond to the Worker and his Union representative the Union contends that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation does little to address this and does not recommend anything that would ensure that there would not be a repeat of such systematic failures on the Company's part.
2.The Worker was on an Acting Inspector list for a period of seven years and had reasonable expectations to be appointed to such a level. The Union contends that the Company, by its actions, denied him the opportunity of achieving this.
3. The Union contends that the Company wasted a lot of time and resources because of its failure to respond to the Worker's initial complaints and subsequently at Headquarters level by the Union.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has acknowledged the unacceptable delay in dealing with the Worker's issues and apologised for this both in writing and verbally at a meeting on the 6th May 2008 and again at the Rights Commissioner hearing in October 2008.
2. The Company has now dealt comprehensively with all the issues raised by the Worker albeit not to the satisfaction of the Worker.
3. The Worker's appeal to the Labour Court is that his grievance has not been dealt with fully to his or the Union's satisfaction. the Company believes that his grievance has been fully dealt with but does not believe that matters are capable of being addressed to the Worker's satisfaction.
DECISION:
The Court notes that the issue referred to the Rights Commissioner for investigation was the Company's failure to respond adequately to the Claimant's complaints.
It is acknowledged that the Company failed to respond to the Union's correspondence in the matter for an inordinate length of time. the Company have apologised for its acknowledged failure and have put systems in place to prevent a recurrence.
The Court is not satisfied that the Claimant has suffered any financial loss which can be directly attributed to the delay complained of. It is, however, acknowledged that he continues to be aggrieved at the manner in which his complaints were handled and the Court understands the basis for his grievance.
Nevertheless there is nothing to suggest that the delay giving rise to this dispute was caused by anything other than human failure within the Company. The Company has apologised for this failure. In the Court's view that apology was sincerely offered and should be magnanimously accepted so as to bring finality to this matter.
In all the circumstances of the case the Court cannot see any reasonable basis upon which it could interfere with the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner. Accordingly the appeal is disallowed and the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is affirmed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
7th August, 2009______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.