FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ARNOTTS LIMITED - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY MANDATE) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Sanctions imposed for alleged sexual harassment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant was a Manager with Boyers Department Store in North Earl Street Dublin until an internal Company investigation into an allegation of sexual harassment, which was made against him by a female member of staff, found against him. The Claimant's Union decided to appeal the findings of the case as it contended that the sanctions imposed on the Claimant, which included a written warning and demotion, were too harsh and were not warranted due mainly to a lack of independent evidence and witnesses. On appeal the original sanctions were upheld and a further sanction, that of transfer to another store, was imposed on the Claimant.
On the 12th June, 2009 the Union 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 20th August, 2009.
The Company informed the Court in writing of its decision not to attend the hearing, the Union agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The internal investigation report could not substantiate that any of the alleged allegations actually took place as there were no witnesses. The one alleged incident that was supported by a date and time could not have happened as the Worker could prove, aided by his time sheets, that he was not on the premises.
2. The Company failed to act in accordance with its own procedures for sexual harassment in that no action was taken at the time the Complainant reported her allegations to Management a year previously.
3. The manner in which the Worker has been treated by the Company has resulted in him being ostracised and victimised. It is clear that the sanctions imposed on the Worker are too harsh and wholly unwarranted given the lack of evidence.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court expresses its considerable disappointment that the Company chose not to attend the hearing. In such circumstances, the Court's task is made much more difficult.
On the evidence of the Claimant and his Trade Union, the Court recommends that a fresh investigation be carried out, by an agreed external third party, into the allegations against the Claimant. Such investigation should be concluded as a matter of urgency, as any further delay is not in the interests of any of the individuals concerned.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
31st August, 2009______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.