FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : G4S SECURITY SERVICES (IRELAND) LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal of Recommendation of Rights Commissioner No: IR61127/08/MR
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns an appeal by the employer of Rights Commissioners Recommendation No: Ir 61127/08/MR.
The dispute concerns an employee of the Company who allegedly offended a fellow worker by his behaviour during an incident in the workplace. Following an investigation into the incident, management imposed a written warning to the worker and he was transferred to another work location. The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation who issued his findings and Recommendation on 8th October, 2008. The Rights Commissioner recommended that the written warning be reduced to a verbal warning and should be considered expired on the basis of the timeframe that has elapsed since it was issued. In relation to the transfer of work location, he recommended that the worker be accommodated if he wished totransfer back to his original work location.
On the 11th November, 2008 the employer appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 6th January, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 Management did not follow correct procedures in the investigation of the alleged incident. The same management personnel carried out both the initial investigation and the disciplinary hearing. In addition, there was no investigation report given to the alleged perpetrator in line with Company procedures.
2 There were no copies of witness statements provided until after the disciplinary hearing took place.
3 It was already decided before the disciplinary hearing that the worker would be transferred to another work location. This shows a predjudiced disposition towards the outcome of the investigation.
- COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
2 It is inappropriate that the Rights Commissioner, having accepted the workers actions were inappropriate, should recommend that the warning be reduced and the worker be considered for a transfer back to the original work location.
3 Management is seeking that the Labour Court uphold the original sanctions imposed on the worker as he was treated fairly at all times and the disciplinary action was warranted.
DECISION:
The Court has carefully considered the written and oral submissions placed before it by the parties.
In the view of the Court, an incident of inappropriate behaviour, both verbal and physical, took place on the day in question, in respect of which some sanction was merited. One incident does not, however, constitute in itself, bullying and harassment, which generally arises from a pattern of unwanted or inappropriate behaviour.
The Company's procedures in dealing with the matter however appear imprecise and flawed and, in this respect, the Company should take steps to tighten up and amend its procedures, preferably as advised by IBEC.
In all the circumstances, the Court upholds the thrust of the Rights Commissioners Recommendation with the additional provisos that the Company, before appointing the worker back to his previous work location (if still available) should counsel him as to the standards of behaviour expected of him. The worker should also, even at this late stage, reflect on whether to apologise for his behaviour, which, whether he realised it or not, offended a fellow worker.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
27th January 2009______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.