FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DUBLIN AIRPORT AUTHORITY - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Failure to apply rules of natural justice to grievance complaint
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Dublin Airport Authority (DAA) and SIPTU in relation to the company's alleged failure to follow its own procedures following a complaint made by a member of staff against a colleague. It is the Union's position that having made the complaint, the worker was not interviewed as part of the investigative process and was not given an opportunity to appeal the findings of the investigation.
The Union also contends that management frustrated the process further by not using the State's third party dispute resolution machinery.
Management's position is that it followed its procedures in relation to the complaint and subsequent investigation. It further contends that it endeavoured to allow an appeal into the matter but that the worker was still absent on sick leave and an appeal at that time was inappropriate. Management also state that, despite being deemed fit to return to work by the occupational physician, the worker remained absent and was therefore removed from the sick pay scheme.
On the 14th April 2009, the worker referred the matter to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 10th June, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The worker made a complaint having been mistreated by a fellow employee of the DAA. Management's investigation into the complaint was flawed on the basis that the complainant was not interviewed in relation to what had happened
2 Management would not agree to an appeal of the investigation and refused to attend the Labour Relations Commission's Conciliation or Rights Commissioners Services.
3 The worker suffered significant stress in relation to the incident itself and the subsequent failure of management to discharge it's duty of care to the worker. The worker was then removed from the payroll despite having been certified unfit by her G.P. to attend work. On that basis the worker has been denied natural justice and fair procedure by the employer.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 Management followed its own procedures into the investigation of the complaint. The investigation findings were published and an appeal was sought by the Union. Management, however, could not hold an appeal while the worker was still absent on sick leave.
2 The Occupational Physician deemed the worker fit to return to work and when this did not occur, the worker's absence was deemed to be unauthorised and she was removed from the sick pay scheme.
3 Management was not obliged to discuss the investigation of another worker with the complainant. The findings of the investigation were issued and the alleged perpetrator was disciplined and has since left the Company. As a result, Management are of the view that the matter is closed.
RECOMMENDATION:
In the view of the Court, the procedures adopted by the Company were not in accordance either with natural justice or with its own grievance procedures.
The Court accordingly recommends that the claimant be paid €2500 compensation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
1st July 2009______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.