FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : VODAFONE IRELAND LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY VODAFONE IRELAND LIMITED) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner Recommendation r-061559-Ir-08/Jt
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns an appeal by the employer of Rights Commissioners Recommendation r-061559-Ir-08/Jt. The issue in dispute concerns an employee of Vodafone Ireland Limited who discovered that a colleague was involved in defrauding
the Company. It is claimed that informing Management of the fraud resulted in significant savings to the Company.
The Union's position is that the claimant was not supported by management when he reported the fraud and that management failed in its duty of care to offer ongoing support afterwards.
Management's position is that the claimant did report the fraud that was taking place, but could have done so a lot sooner and saved the Company from the significant losses it incurred. Management further contend that it did support the claimant after he reported the fraud and made every effort to fulfill its duty of care.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. His recommendation issued on 3rd March, 2009 and awarded the claimant
€14,500 on the basis of the personal difficulties and perceived risks associated with bringing forward his allegations.
On 6th April, 2009 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 2nd June, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The claimant agonised over the situation for many months. It would have been detrimental to his career to make false allegations against a senior member of management. When he did make his suspicions known to Management, he was not given adequate support in assisting with the personal difficulties caused to him by the event.
2 Management claim to have improved the claimants performance management rating which resulted in an increase in bonus earnings. The increase in question was marginal by comparison to the estimated savings of over €3m to the Company. On the basis of the savings, the stress caused and lack of subsequent support the claim as presented is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The claimant was employed in the fraud detection area of the Company. By reporting the fraud, he was merely doing the job assigned to him. It is, therefore, inappropriate that workers be compensated for carrying out their contracted duties.
2 The worker, on the basis of the information given and subsequent savings received an enhanced bonus as part of the Company's performace management system. This is adequate and in line with the Company's procedures.
DECISION:
The Court is satisfied that the circumstances giving rise to this claim are exceptional in many important respects. The Claimant found himself in a position in which he was faced with suspicions that a senior member of the company management, to whom he reported, was perpetrating a fraud upon the company.
At the material time there were no supports or guidelines available to the Claimant to assist him in dealing with the situation in which he was placed. Whilst the Claimant acted responsibly and reported his suspensions, the absence of appropriate supports and procedures caused him to suffer significant anxiety and distress resulting in him requiring a prolonged period of sick leave.
Having regard to all the circumstances and the exceptional nature of the case the Court is satisfied that a level of compensation is appropriate for the stress and anxiety suffered by the Claimant, which in the Court view, was attributable to the absence of appropriate supports and procedure (which have since been put in place).
The Court, however, believes that a more appropriate level of compensation is €12,000.
The Rights Commissioner’s recommendation is varied accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
15th June 2009______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.