FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : NA FIANNA CE SCHEME LTD - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY HAYES SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Various Issues
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant was employed as a Community Employment Scheme Supervisor since 2001 on a series of one year fixed term contracts renewed annually pursuant to an agreement between FÁS and the employer. In March 2009 the claimant was asked to meet with the chairperson of the Employer. She was notified that the Community Employment Scheme was not being renewed and her position was to be redundant. No advanced notification was given to FÁS of the proposed redundancy. The second complaint from the Claimant relates to the employers failure to address serious grievances raised by the claimant. In a letter to her employer the claimant set out serious allegations concerning the creation of an intolerable and unacceptable work environment for her. It is her claim that the employer failed to carry out any meaningfull investigation into these grievances.
In a letter to the Court, the Employer indicated that it would not attend the Court as the Employer believed that it had fully addressed the Claimants grievances and the statutory redundancy due to her.
On the 1st May, 2009 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 17th July, 2009.
The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 As a result of the termination of the Community Employment Scheme by the Employer, the Claimant is entitled to an enhanced redundancy payment in accordance with the FÁS and SIPTU Agreement reached in 2005.
2 In a letter to her Employer, the Claimant outlined a number of serious allegations of harassment and maltreatment in the work place The Employer failed to address these issues notwithstanding the existence of a formal policy dealing with bullying and harassment in the workplace.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The Employer does not consider itself bound by the provisions of the FÁS and SIPTU Agreement 2005 regarding enhanced redundancy payments.
2 A meeting proceeded in March 2009 to deal with the claimant's letter to her Employer. At that meeting it was agreed that four of the complaints required no further action and the remaining two would be subject to further investigation by committee members.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is most disappointed that the employer in this case chose not to appear at the hearing and only to make a written submission in reply to the claimant's case.
Having considered the submissions before it, the Court recommends as follows.
Redundancy severance terms
The appropriate severance package which should be paid is that provided for in the 2005 FÁS/SIPTU Agreement, i.e an ex-gratia payment of 3.35 weeks pay per year of service in addition to Statutory entitlements. In order to implement the Recommendation, the parties should, if necessary, both approach FÁS with a view to securing the necessary funding.
Failure to address grievances
In the view of the Court, the actions of the employer in this matter fell very far short of accepted good practice in this area and constituted a failure in its duty of care to its employee. The lack of any form of proper investigation into the complaints has only added to this. The Court is of the view that an independent investigation of the grievances would have been the correct course of action but that this is no longer practicable in the circumstances outlined.
The Court also and accordingly recommends that the claimant be paid €10,000 in compensation for the failure to address her grievances
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
7th August, 2009______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.